Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophical Realists insist there are real things which exist absolutely independent of human minds, brains and bodies, i.e. they exist prior to human beings and will exist even when the human species is extinct.

Kant insisted, no things can exist as real independent of the human minds, brains and bodies. Kant termed these supposed things thought by philosophical realists as noumena [contrast phenomena], they are illusory if insisted to be real.

Here is a relevant discussion on the issue;

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 7:27 am 1 Exactly what is the noumenon?
2 Why is the noumenon a useful illusion?
3 Please cite one example of Kant saying that there is no reality outside or beyond what humans can know. I could have missed it - so this is a genuine request.

1. I have already mentioned this a "1000" times where Kant explained what is the noumenon in contrast to the phenomena.

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

2. A noumenon cannot never be real in the positive empirical sense [mind-related], but it can be merely thought as an intelligible thought only.
E.g. of empirical noumenon are perfect circle, perfect triangle, square, geometry shapes. These noumenon do not exist within empirical reality but they are used as standards as guide to make more realistic shapes.
As such they are useful illusions.

God as thing-in-itself is an intelligible idea which cannot be empirical, but God is nevertheless useful for theists to soothe their cognitive dissonance with its salvific value and the illusory has other utilities to the majority.

3. If you are familiar with the CPR, the whole CPR assert there is no reality that can be empirically known.

• The Possibility of Experience is, then, what gives Objective Reality to all our a priori Modes of Knowledge. B195

• they [Appearances] are yet the only Objects in regard to which our Knowledge can possess Objective Reality,
  that is, in respect of which there is an Intuition corresponding to the Concepts. B335

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
  and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality. B397

Re B397, without grounding on what is knowable [empirical] humans are deluded by pure reason to illusions but ignorantly insist such has objective reality.

See this explanation on How the Noumenon is idealized as an illusion;
viewtopic.php?p=667920#p667920

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:58 am Nowhere here does Kant say that there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know.
To say the object orbits the subject is not to say the object doesn't exist.

Note:
Kant did say that there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know.

Note Kant stated,
they [Appearances] are yet the only Objects in regard to which our Knowledge can possess Objective Reality,B336
the above implied, only what we can know from what is realized empirically [appearances - sensibility] are the only object which are real [has objective reality], what is outside the sphere of sensibility-appearance [can be known] cannot have objective reality.

Kant never said the object orbits the subject.

The above is a bit cryptic, you have to read the whole of Kant's CPR to assert;
"Nowhere here does Kant say that there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know."
with any confidence.

Despite my explanation above and request to read the mentioned chapter,
you are dogmatically grounding your view of reality on philosophical realism which Kant critiqued as based on Pure Reason, as such is chasing after an illusion.
This is why you are so bewitched with the starting point "there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know."

Here is another point where I have mentioned often;

• 1. Philosophical realists [mind-independence] claim there are objects that exist beyond or outside what humans can know. Kant stated such objects as claimed by p-realists are intelligible objects, i.e. noumenon which are illusory.
  The noumenon is an intelligible object, i.e. merely a thought, not a matter-of-fact [FSK-ed].

Phenomena are sensible objects in reality, not merely as appearances but cover what emerged and realized, capable of being FSK-ed.
Phenomena that emerged and realized as reality are the only things that can be known via FSKs.

• Phenomena [sensible] vs Noumena [Intelligible]
  1a: At the same time, if we entitle certain Objects, as Appearances, Sensible entities 2 (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 Understanding,
  in opposition to the former [Phenomena, sensible entities],
  and that in so doing we entitle them Intelligible Entities 1 (Noumena).B306
  
  1b. If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative sense of the term. B306
  
  
  1c: But if we understand by it an Object of a non-Sensible Intuition, we thereby presuppose a special Mode of Intuition, namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the Possibility. This would be 'Noumenon' in the positive sense of the term. B306
  
  1d. Doubtless, indeed, there are Intelligible entities corresponding to the Sensible entities;
  there may also be Intelligible entities to which our Sensible Faculty of Intuition has no Relation whatsoever;
  but our Concepts of Understanding, being mere Forms of Thought for our Sensible Intuition, could not in the least apply to them {intelligible entities}.
  That, therefore, which we entitle 'Noumenon' must be understood as being [re intelligible entities] such only in a negative sense. B309
  
  1e. ...when the Object is not a Phenomenon (that is, is a Noumenon);
  and it is in this latter sense {as Noumena} that the Object is taken,
  when it is thought as merely Intelligible, that is to say, as being Given to the Understanding alone, and not to the Senses. B313

2. For the Intelligible [object] would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible object] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves. CPR B336

The noumenon [as claimed by p-realist] which is supposed to be a reality beyond knowledge, if to exist as real, theoretically, would need a peculiar intuition, but humans do not possess such an intelligible intuition to realize the noumenon as an intelligible object.

So, there can be no mind-independent reality* beyond or outside what humans can know."
* mind independent reality as claimed by philosophical realists.

Hope the above is not that cryptic, if you don't understand [not necessary agree with], raise your questions.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:01 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:34 am It is obvious you do not understand Kant at all.

The distinction between intelligible objects vs sensible objects and their respective intuitions are explained in Kant's CPR extensively in the Transcendent Aesthetic and the Transcendental Logic.

You can get an idea of the distinction in the Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena I presented herein
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987
CPR B294-315

You keep blabbering, introduce something substantial why you think Kant is wrong in relation to the above?

To repeat, Kant's invention of the noumenon - a thing-in-itself - is a silly tease required to establish the silly claim that all we can have access to - and therefore all we can know - are phenomena, or things as they appear to our senses.

As I had stated, there are two senses of reality, i.e.

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

Philosophical realism [2] is a very dogmatic ideology [ism] which was invented from an evolutionary default of a sense of external-ness existence of things outside to facilitate basic survival for all organism since 3.5 billion years ago.

What is phenomena is what is experienced thus basically related to the internal-ness of the human-body, brain and mind.

Because the external-ness of existence of things outside are a default thus instinctualized and habitualized, it is natural for all humans to think there must be something external that represent what is internal [phenomena as experienced]. [note dualism]
It is very natural [based on Pure Reason*] to think of such logically for every human beings is habitualized with that evolutionary default of external_ness.

So Kant went along and accept the term 'noumenon' to represent that supposedly external thing in contrast to phenomena but with very strong qualifications as stipulated in his chapter on Noumena vs Phenomena.
* that is why Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

BUT the problem is the philosophical realists insist on this habitualized default of external-ness on a dogmatic ideological level. In this sense, the philosophical realists are insisting on what is supposed [assumed] noumenon to be really real, thus chasing an illusion.

To Kant, what is rally real are the 'phenomena'.
Phenomena [sensibility] in this case, is not what is perceived, known and described.
To paraphrase Kant, what is phenomena is the emergence and realization of a thing prior to its perception, knowing and describing it.

Thus, the phenomena [sensibilty] is the realized reality [conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of forces since the BB].
In contrast, the thinking of the noumena is merely a thought via the intellect, thus it is an intelligible object.

intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses [nb: sensibility not merely 5 senses].

To reify a noumenon as really real as claim by p-realists is chasing an illusion.

So Kant repackaged empiricist skepticism, in order to find a way around the supposed 'scandal' that we can't 'prove' the existence of the so-called external world. Hence his so-called Copernican revolution in epistemology.

The analogy with the Copernican Revolution is;
Human with their evolutionary default of external-ness are focus on the outside and as such habitualized to assume the earth and flat and the external Sun which is so obvious move from East to West.
When the philosophical realist cling to this externalness that the Sun moved, it brought along all sort of philosophical problems of what is reality.
Kant [stated, fuck the focus on external_ness as an ideology] but rather do a paradigm shift [Copernican Revolution] to focus on the internalness of the human being in its interaction with reality as a whole.

Here are some questions. Try answering them without simply quoting Kant.

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

To what is the so-called external world supposedly external?

What and where is a so-called intelligible thing - or, in upmarket posh, object or entity? Please give an example.

It is not that there is no noumena.
The point is, there no p-realist's version of what-is-noumena as absolutely mind-independent clung dogmatically an ideology, which then is an illusion if reified.

Anti-p-realists can accept the idea of the noumena, but insist it is not absolutely mind-independent in the p-realist sense.
If the noumena is to be recognized as 'something' that it has to be in the Negative Sense as some sort of limitation; read Kant's chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena.
It is delusional to insist the noumena is a really real thing that is mind-independent.

There is an external world within common sense, but it is subsumed within the human conditions, thus there is no external world which is absolute mind-independent as the p-realists are claiming.

What and where is a so-called intelligible thing
intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses [nb: sensibility not merely 5 senses].

Thus anything that can thought but not realizable as a real things via sensibility is an intelligible object.
The noumenon is an intelligible object and can never be realized as a real sensible object that can be justified via a human-based FSK like the science FSK.

You claimed to have read Kant, but you are displaying extensive ignorance and understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's CPR.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:06 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:58 am Nowhere here does Kant say that there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know.
To say the object orbits the subject is not to say the object doesn't exist.

Note:
Kant did say that there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know.

Note Kant stated,
they [Appearances] are yet the only Objects in regard to which our Knowledge can possess Objective Reality,B336
the above implied, only what we can know from what is realized empirically [appearances - sensibility] are the only object which are real [has objective reality], what is outside the sphere of sensibility-appearance [can be known] cannot have objective reality.

I'm sorry, but I think you misinterpret what Kant's saying here. What he calls phenomena (appearances/sensible entities) are the only things we can know to be real. (That's what 'the only objects in regard to which our knowledge can possess objective reality' means.)

Put it like this. There are three different but overlapping sets or categories of things, as follows.

1 Things that exist.
2 Things that we can know to exist: phenomena/sensible entities.
3 Things that we know do exist.

There are several things to notice about this taxonomy.

1 Nothing about it is anti-realist or idealist. This taxonomy is perfectly compatible with philosophical realism. For example, Kant thought that Newtonian mechanics does describe a universe that actually exists.

2 None of the sets is identical to the others. For example, the set of things that we know do exist (3) is not identical to the set of things that we can know to exist (2). There's no reason to think that reality is limited to things we know about. And that explains the progress of the natural sciences.

And, for example, Kant does not say that the set of things we can know to exist - phenomena - (2) is identical to the set of things that exist (1). His argument is that, because we're limited to 'sensible intuition', we can never know if there are 'intelligible entities'. And that's the 'positive' sense of the term 'noumena' - objects of 'intellectual intuition'.

The 'negative' sense of the term 'noumena' informs the 'useful illusion' - what I call the teasing idea of noumena. The phenomena don't identify, name and describe - or 'order' - themselves. So we have to do it as we come to perceive, know and describe them. And this creates the illusion that we're describing reality-as-it-is - the 'noumenon'. (I think this is where Kant goes horribly wrong.)

3 Kant's 'critique of pure reason' - his rejection of the idea that we can 'rise above' sensible intuition - does not entail rejection of objectivity, or the necessity of intersubjective consensus. We may arrive at objective knowledge by means of consensus opinion, but that doesn't mean that objectivity depends on consensus. There's a reality of which there can be objective knowledge.

Now, you're free to criticise and disagree with my interpretation of Kant. And I'd welcome others' thoughts.

My main point is that Kant's admittedly dense and badly-expressed ideas don't support anti-realism, though they can easily be thought to do so.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 9:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:06 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:58 am Nowhere here does Kant say that there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know.
To say the object orbits the subject is not to say the object doesn't exist.

Note:
Kant did say that there can be no reality beyond or outside what humans can know.

Note Kant stated,
they [Appearances] are yet the only Objects in regard to which our Knowledge can possess Objective Reality,B336
the above implied, only what we can know from what is realized empirically [appearances - sensibility] are the only object which are real [has objective reality], what is outside the sphere of sensibility-appearance [can be known] cannot have objective reality.

I'm sorry, but I think you misinterpret what Kant's saying here. What he calls phenomena (appearances/sensible entities) are the only things we can know to be real. (That's what 'the only objects in regard to which our knowledge can possess objective reality' means.)

Put it like this. There are three different but overlapping sets or categories of things, as follows.

1 Things that exist.
2 Things that we can know to exist: phenomena/sensible entities.
3 Things that we know do exist.

You did not take into account the following;

Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

Your taxonomy 1-3 is based on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

There are several things to notice about this taxonomy.

1 Nothing about it is anti-realist or idealist. This taxonomy is perfectly compatible with philosophical realism. For example, Kant thought that Newtonian mechanics does describe a universe that actually exists.

Really??
Where did Kant say that?

Newton believed what actually exist in reality are created by a real God; God's creations [mind-independent] are awaiting discovery by himself and other scientists and others.
Kant did not believe in any real God.

Your belief of things in reality are mind-independent is in the same mode as Newton's except you did not invoke God but merely blurb what is really real is just-is, being-so, that is the case, & states of affairs, without proofs.

Where Newton is mentioned in the CPR,

According to this [modern] usage, some have thought good to entitle the Sum Of Appearances, in so far as they are intuited, the World of the Senses, and
in so far as their Connection is thought in conformity with Laws of Understanding, the World of the Understanding. B313

Observational 1 astronomy, which teaches merely the observation of the starry heavens, would give an account of the former [the World of the Senses];
theoretical astronomy, on the other hand, as taught according to the Copernican System, or according to Newton's Laws of gravitation, would give an account of the second [the World of the Understanding], namely, of an Intelligible World.
But such a twisting of words is a merely sophistical subterfuge; it seeks to avoid a troublesome question by changing its meaning to suit our own convenience.

In addition, Newton claim Space and Time is absolute and exist mind-independently.
Kant is opposed to the above.

Newton concepts are more suited to the intelligible world which if insisted to be actually existing is delusional.

2 None of the sets is identical to the others. For example, the set of things that we know do exist (3) is not identical to the set of things that we can know to exist (2). There's no reason to think that reality is limited to things we know about. And that explains the progress of the natural sciences.

That is because your reality is grounded on an illusion which does not take into account the more realistic human-based FSK where;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

And, for example, Kant does not say that the set of things we can know to exist - phenomena - (2) is identical to the set of things that exist (1). His argument is that, because we're limited to 'sensible intuition', we can never know if there are 'intelligible entities'. And that's the 'positive' sense of the term 'noumena' - objects of 'intellectual intuition'.

Theoretically and logically, Noumenon can be used in the positive sense only as grounded upon the existence of 'intellectual intuition' BUT,
I wrote earlier, Kant stated, it is impossible for humans to have intellectual intuition needed to know intelligible entities.
Thus when humans posited intelligible entities such as the noumenon [p-realists claim to be really real] they are merely Thoughts never real things.
At most they [intelligible entities] can only be used in the Negative sense.

The 'negative' sense of the term 'noumena' informs the 'useful illusion' - what I call the teasing idea of noumena. The phenomena don't identify, name and describe - or 'order' - themselves. So we have to do it as we come to perceive, know and describe them. And this creates the illusion that we're describing reality-as-it-is - the 'noumenon'. (I think this is where Kant goes horribly wrong.)

You think Kant is wrong but realistically you are wrong because you are grounding your claim based on an ideological illusion of philosophical realism.

You keep forgetting this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Before phenomena are experienced, perceived, known and described there is a prior emergence and realization process of reality within the human being, brain, body and mind.
As such, there is no reality-as-it-is independent of [unrelated to, unassociated with] the human being, brain, body and mind.

3 Kant's 'critique of pure reason' - his rejection of the idea that we can 'rise above' sensible intuition - does not entail rejection of objectivity, or the necessity of intersubjective consensus. We may arrive at objective knowledge by means of consensus opinion, but that doesn't mean that objectivity depends on consensus. There's a reality of which there can be objective knowledge.

Your view above is based upon a dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

I have asked you a 'million' times, do you deny scientific objectivity which is conditioned upon intersubjective consensus of scientists?

Now, you're free to criticise and disagree with my interpretation of Kant. And I'd welcome others' thoughts.

My main point is that Kant's admittedly dense and badly-expressed ideas don't support anti-realism, though they can easily be thought to do so.

That is why I insisted you do not understand Kant fully;

Kant stated,

• From the start, we have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
  CPR A370

If you read the full context in relation to the above, Kant is definitely an anti-philosophical realist.

I am sure you more to try to talk about Kant, the more it exposes your ignorance of Kant's philosophy. Suggest you reread Kant's CPR -at least 20 times.

Yes, we need wisdom but more so, what we need is morality-proper; to do so, we need to unfold the inherent moral potential within ALL humans.
How?
To do unfold the moral potential to its effective potential we need science to dig into the precision mechanism of the moral function to enable it to work effectively.

Potential is a kind of noumena. It's posited as something that could become real. It's not actual, but potential.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 2:36 pm

Yes, we need wisdom but more so, what we need is morality-proper; to do so, we need to unfold the inherent moral potential within ALL humans.
How?
To do unfold the moral potential to its effective potential we need science to dig into the precision mechanism of the moral function to enable it to work effectively.

Potential is a kind of noumena. It's posited as something that could become real. It's not actual, but potential.

The moral potential and function is not a noumenal at all.
It is something that is physically real via the science-biology-ethics FSK.

The moral potential and function within ALL human beings is like the 'puberty potential' which exists and unfold upon certain age of the human life.
It is physically real because it exists with its physical neural correlates awaiting the right time to be triggered.
If damaged for various reasons, this real physical potential may not be fully realized, but it nevertheless exists as a real potential supported by its physical neural correlates and DNA codes.

It is the same with the physical moral potential and function in ALL humans [analogically, a sort of seed] which is unfolding very slowly in evolutionary time, not like the puberty potential which unfold at a certain time in a human life.

Why is such a potential [moral, puberty, intelligence] not real physically grounded on its neural correlates in a living person?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:53 am Potential is a kind of noumena. It's posited as something that could become real. It's not actual, but potential.

]The moral potential and function is not a noumenal at all.
It is something that is physically real via the science-biology-ethics FSK.

Then it is not potential, it is actual. What is it made of and where is it? And is anyone looking at this 'potential'? How is it experienced, this potential?

It is the same with the physical moral potential and function in ALL humans [analogically, a sort of seed]

It's not at all like a seed. I can hold a seed, see a seed. And you cannot say the tree is there. The tree is not there. The seed is there. I am not denying that a tree, in many cases, will exist later, but it does not exist now. And potential, as you must know, means that it COULD exist later. Or it might not. It could exist LATER. It's not there now. There are things there that might be part of causal chains that will result in some future existing thing. AGain, like your unborn children may one day exist. But they don't exist now. Despite your having sperm in you and the future mother having eggs.

which is unfolding very slowly in evolutionary time, not like the puberty potential which unfold at a certain time in a human life.

It seems like you are saying something will happen later in time. But where is it now. It's like saying that the children you are going to have someday exist and can be seen.

Why is such a potential [moral, puberty, intelligence] not real physically grounded on its neural correlates in a living person?

We can't see it. It doesn't take up space. It is hypothetic. By definition it is not actual.

If other people posit things that cannot be experienced now, you tell them they are philosophical gnats, etc.

Why do you, then, allow yourself to posit the existence of things that cannot be experienced now?

That's a noumenon.

I mean, the Moon, which we can often see, doesn't exist when we aren't looking at it.

But you think this moral potential exists even though it is never seen, being pre-actualized. Being, by definition, not experienced.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:53 am Potential is a kind of noumena. It's posited as something that could become real. It's not actual, but potential.

]The moral potential and function is not a noumenal at all.
It is something that is physically real via the science-biology-ethics FSK.

Then it is not potential, it is actual. What is it made of and where is it? And is anyone looking at this 'potential'? How is it experienced, this potential?

It is the same with the physical moral potential and function in ALL humans [analogically, a sort of seed]

It's not at all like a seed. I can hold a seed, see a seed. And you cannot say the tree is there. The tree is not there. The seed is there. I am not denying that a tree, in many cases, will exist later, but it does not exist now. And potential, as you must know, means that it COULD exist later. Or it might not. It could exist LATER. It's not there now. There are things there that might be part of causal chains that will result in some future existing thing. AGain, like your unborn children may one day exist. But they don't exist now. Despite your having sperm in you and the future mother having eggs.

which is unfolding very slowly in evolutionary time, not like the puberty potential which unfold at a certain time in a human life.

It seems like you are saying something will happen later in time. But where is it now. It's like saying that the children you are going to have someday exist and can be seen.

Why is such a potential [moral, puberty, intelligence] not real physically grounded on its neural correlates in a living person?

We can't see it. It doesn't take up space. It is hypothetic. By definition it is not actual.

If other people posit things that cannot be experienced now, you tell them they are philosophical gnats, etc.

Why do you, then, allow yourself to posit the existence of things that cannot be experienced now?

That's a noumenon.

I mean, the Moon, which we can often see, doesn't exist when we aren't looking at it.

But you think this moral potential exists even though it is never seen, being pre-actualized. Being, by definition, not experienced.

When you pull and stretch a rubber string, it has the potential to spring back.
The potential exists as real supported by the physical molecules in a specific state.
You cannot see the potential but it can manifest itself within certain conditions, e.g. when the rubber string springs back and revert to its original conditions.

Similarly, the moral potential is supported by its physical reference, i.e. physical neurons, molecules and particles in a certain specific state as manufactured from DNA codes.

Note many FSK-ed realities are not seen but rather inferred from their manifestations, e.g. gravity, energy, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:50 am When you pull and stretch a rubber string, it has the potential to spring back.
The potential exists as real supported by the physical molecules in a specific state.

Much better example. But all you have is those molecules (which you cannot see, by the way, either). There is no existent potential springing back. You have the state of the rubber band now. That's it.

You cannot see the potential but it can manifest itself within certain conditions, e.g. when the rubber string springs back and revert to its original conditions.

Can manifest. Is not in existence yet, but we make a prediction about what might happen in the future. The springing back does not exist. The potential does not exist, is not experiencable. The springing back, when it is occurring, can be experienced.

Similarly, the moral potential is supported by its physical reference, i.e. physical neurons, molecules and particles in a certain specific state as manufactured from DNA codes.

It is not 'supported' because it does not exist. Yes, those other, quite invisible states and particles do exist.

Note many FSK-ed realities are not seen but rather inferred from their manifestations, e.g. gravity, energy, etc.

Yup, just like noumena are inferred.

Inferred. Inferred is not seen nor experienced. But you grant them existence via inference
which
is
exactly
what scientists
and
others
do
with noumena.

All you are doing here is justifying the existence of noumena. And you are using scientific FSKs to justify their existence. I think these are reasonable arguments, but they are realist arguments for things we cannot experience, in this case, potentials.

You are doing exactly what realists do: infer.

realist justifications for something that we must infer is there because we cannot experience it. Or we wouldn't call it a potential, that is something that might or might not manifest.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 8:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:50 am When you pull and stretch a rubber string, it has the potential to spring back.
The potential exists as real supported by the physical molecules in a specific state.

Much better example. But all you have is those molecules (which you cannot see, by the way, either). There is no existent potential springing back. You have the state of the rubber band now. That's it.

You cannot see the potential but it can manifest itself within certain conditions, e.g. when the rubber string springs back and revert to its original conditions.

Can manifest. Is not in existence yet, but we make a prediction about what might happen in the future. The springing back does not exist. The potential does not exist, is not experiencable. The springing back, when it is occurring, can be experienced.

Similarly, the moral potential is supported by its physical reference, i.e. physical neurons, molecules and particles in a certain specific state as manufactured from DNA codes.

It is not 'supported' because it does not exist. Yes, those other, quite invisible states and particles do exist.

Note many FSK-ed realities are not seen but rather inferred from their manifestations, e.g. gravity, energy, etc.

Yup, just like noumena are inferred.

Inferred. Inferred is not seen nor experienced. But you grant them existence via inference
which
is
exactly
what scientists
and
others
do
with noumena.

All you are doing here is justifying the existence of noumena. And you are using scientific FSKs to justify their existence. I think these are reasonable arguments, but they are realist arguments for things we cannot experience, in this case, potentials.

You are doing exactly what realists do: infer.

Note there are two stances to science to be considered here, i.e.

1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism
2. Scientific antirealism - human-based FSK

Scientific Realism grounded on philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Modern Science do not rely upon Scientific Realism grounded on philosophical realism, note,

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
  It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

That "true reality" is what traditional science deemed as the noumenal, i.e. that which exists absolutely mind-independent by itself.

Thus I keep telling you the potential is something very real [empirical rational] which can be verified and justified within a human-based science FSK [model dependent realism].

The potential of a stretch rubber string [its physical state] can be objectively measured within a human-based FSK by the length is extended from its original length, the longer the spring [or arrangement of molecules within certain conditions] the greater the strength of its potential to spring back to enable work to be done.
As such, the potential as real can be infer as real from those measurements.
How come you are so blur with this?

This real potential is not the illusory noumenal potential you have reasoned out from philosophical realism driven by an evolutionary default and psychological propensities.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:02 am Note there are two stances to science to be considered here, i.e.

1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism
2. Scientific antirealism - human-based FSK

Scientific Realism grounded on philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Modern Science do not rely upon Scientific Realism grounded on philosophical realism, note,

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
  It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

That "true reality" is what traditional science deemed as the noumenal, i.e. that which exists absolutely mind-independent by itself.

Thus I keep telling you the potential is something very real [empirical rational] which can be verified and justified within a human-based science FSK [model dependent realism].

The potential of a stretch rubber string [its physical state] can be objectively measured within a human-based FSK by the length is extended from its original length, the longer the spring [or arrangement of molecules within certain conditions] the greater the strength of its potential to spring back to enable work to be done.
As such, the potential as real can be infer as real from those measurements.
How come you are so blur with this?

This real potential is not the illusory noumenal potential you have reasoned out from philosophical realism driven by an evolutionary default and psychological propensities.

I'm afraid I dislike your habit of throwing a lot of stuff that isn't really on point and repeating yourself.
You did exactly what realists do. You inferred that something is there - moral potentials - something that cannot in the moment be experienced.
Unless you are doing to say, suddenly, that there is a potential moon present, in its orbit, when no one is looking at it, you are contradicting yourself.

What you did when I reacted as an antirealist to the existence of these noumena (the potential) was what every realist does. They justify the existence based on models and research. You can't have it both ways.

If you get to infer non-manifest things, then realists do. Because you are being a realist when you do that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:40 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:02 am Note there are two stances to science to be considered here, i.e.

1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism
2. Scientific antirealism - human-based FSK

Scientific Realism grounded on philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Modern Science do not rely upon Scientific Realism grounded on philosophical realism, note,

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
  It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

That "true reality" is what traditional science deemed as the noumenal, i.e. that which exists absolutely mind-independent by itself.

Thus I keep telling you the potential is something very real [empirical rational] which can be verified and justified within a human-based science FSK [model dependent realism].

The potential of a stretch rubber string [its physical state] can be objectively measured within a human-based FSK by the length is extended from its original length, the longer the spring [or arrangement of molecules within certain conditions] the greater the strength of its potential to spring back to enable work to be done.
As such, the potential as real can be infer as real from those measurements.
How come you are so blur with this?

This real potential is not the illusory noumenal potential you have reasoned out from philosophical realism driven by an evolutionary default and psychological propensities.

I'm afraid I dislike your habit of throwing a lot of stuff that isn't really on point and repeating yourself.
You did exactly what realists do. You inferred that something is there - moral potentials - something that cannot in the moment be experienced.
Unless you are doing to say, suddenly, that there is a potential moon present, in its orbit, when no one is looking at it, you are contradicting yourself.

What you did when I reacted as an antirealist to the existence of these noumena (the potential) was what every realist does. They justify the existence based on models and research. You can't have it both ways.

If you get to infer non-manifest things, then realists do. Because you are being a realist when you do that.

Strawman.
I don't give a damn with your feelings, especially when that is based on your own ignorance and philosophical incompetence.
Why should I accept your interpretation of my philosophical position?

You are so ignorant of the contention between
1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism and
2. Scientific antirealism - human-based FSK

Realist/realism in this case, refer to philosophical realist/realism.
I have already explained, I inferred the existence of a moral potential based on Scientific anti-realism i.e. conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
If I am with 2 [anti-realist] then I cannot be 2 [realist].

I am a 'realist' in the sense of being an empirical-realist but that is ultimately subsumed within anti-realism, so ultimately I am not a philosophical realist.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:31 am I am a 'realist' in the sense of being an empirical-realist but that is ultimately subsumed within anti-realism, so ultimately I am not a philosophical realist.

Putting the citation marks around the word realist means you haven't made a useful assertion. I understand why you did it, but it's just games. You just made the hypocrisy or contradiction sound like you are taking some kind of sensible stand. What it boils down to however is...when convenient you can assert the existence of specific noumena, and yet it is always bad when other posters do in a discussion with you. When they do it, they are philosophical gnats or suffering from an evolutionary default (both terms you use to express your feelings without owning your feelings). When you do it, its fine.
When you ask

Why should I accept your interpretation of my philosophical position?

My interpretation, first of all, is that you do not have a consistant position. That it shifts depending on context. And this is clear when you allow yourself to infer things that cannot be directly experienced. And you did this in a typical, and decently argued, realist way. You did it as if we were two realists and I was questioning your realist conclusion about moral potentials.

And I notice what you do not respond to in my post.

You infer the existence of things not experienced. That's realism. Realist when convenient. Anti-realist when convenient.

I have already explained, I inferred the existence of a moral potential based on Scientific anti-realism i.e. conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
If I am with 2 [anti-realist] then I cannot be 2 [realist].

The problem with this argument is that you drew a realist conclusion. That something potential and not possibly experienced now is real and exists. That's realism. Scientific anti-realism is a position on unobservables. And if something is a potential, it is not actual and cannot be observed. It may or may not be manifest later, in the same thing or place, but it is BY DEFINITION, not observable now.

And by the way mentioning scientific anti-realism doesn't help you in the least, because then talk about atoms in certain states is also a problem.

And if you want to repeat your realist argument about atoms and internal states in bodies, be clear that I am not disagreeing with that (very realist argument). I am pointing out what kind of argument it is. I am pointing out how your argument is perfectly aligned with arguments against your position on the Moon and many other things...arguments you dismissed.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:31 am I am a 'realist' in the sense of being an empirical-realist but that is ultimately subsumed within anti-realism, so ultimately I am not a philosophical realist.

Putting the citation marks around the word realist means you haven't made a useful assertion. I understand why you did it, but it's just games. You just made the hypocrisy or contradiction sound like you are taking some kind of sensible stand. What it boils down to however is...when convenient you can assert the existence of specific noumena, and yet it is always bad when other posters do in a discussion with you. When they do it, they are philosophical gnats or suffering from an evolutionary default (both terms you use to express your feelings without owning your feelings). When you do it, its fine.
When you ask

Why should I accept your interpretation of my philosophical position?

My interpretation, first of all, is that you do not have a consistant position. That it shifts depending on context. And this is clear when you allow yourself to infer things that cannot be directly experienced. And you did this in a typical, and decently argued, realist way. You did it as if we were two realists and I was questioning your realist conclusion about moral potentials.

And I notice what you do not respond to in my post.

You infer the existence of things not experienced. That's realism. Realist when convenient. Anti-realist when convenient.

I have already explained, I inferred the existence of a moral potential based on Scientific anti-realism i.e. conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
If I am with 2 [anti-realist] then I cannot be 2 [realist].

The problem with this argument is that you drew a realist conclusion. That something potential and not possibly experienced now is real and exists. That's realism. Scientific anti-realism is a position on unobservables. And if something is a potential, it is not actual and cannot be observed. It may or may not be manifest later, in the same thing or place, but it is BY DEFINITION, not observable now.

And by the way mentioning scientific anti-realism doesn't help you in the least, because then talk about atoms in certain states is also a problem.

And if you want to repeat your realist argument about atoms and internal states in bodies, be clear that I am not disagreeing with that (very realist argument). I am pointing out what kind of argument it is. I am pointing out how your argument is perfectly aligned with arguments against your position on the Moon and many other things...arguments you dismissed.

Your above is strawmaning.

My position as empirical-realist & anti-philosophical_realist is the same at all times.
I can't be using the term empirical-realist & anti-philosophical_realist and attaching to all my views at all times, but use each appropriate the the context.
Whatever, I am ultimately an ANTI-philosophical_realist while being a relative empirical-realist.

The philosophical-realist claim is that of absolute mind-independence without compromise, i.e. to the extent the moon existed before there were humans and will exists even if humans are extinct.

As a relative empirical-realist I do claim the moon is relatively mind-independent [i.e. external to myself, mind, brain and body] and if there are no humans, there is no moon at all.