Stu, you didn’t specifically address the points I made except for two:

I did not say the moon “as a thing in itself” does not exist apart from human perception. I simply said the human percept “moon” does not exist apart from human perception.

There is one other place where you addressed the content of what I wrote, and I’m not sure what I could have said to make it more clear.

I wrote that I had conducted over 2000 IQ tests. I’m not sure how familiar you are, Stu, with discussions going back over 100 years to the time of Paul Broca and Sir Francis Galton who were among the first to talk about how to measure intelligence (you refer to “signs” of intelligence from thousands of years ago, but we both were talking about measuring it, not “signs” of it).

I can tell you from decades of close investigation of the various areas of psychology involved in trying to define and measure intelligence, there is no agreed upon definition. As I wrote, IQ does NOT measure general intelligence in a way most neuroscientists and psychologists agree; rather, it measures a rather limited set of a particular kind of cognitive reasoning, aural, visual and cognitive processing, as well as several kinds of visual-spatial abilities.

One concluding thought: I’m intrigued that you said there IS a definition of the word “physical” but failed to provide one. As I’ve found in virtually every conversation with materialists/atheists/physicalists/naturalists, they are simply incapable of defining it. Now, there is an important caveat.

If “physical” simply means, to give one example, the “material” that makes up our body, then of course there are simple definitions. I’m assuming that it was implicitly clear that physicalism uses the word “physical” in a strict sense — as on ontological primitive.

I apologize for not making that more clear. To date, I have never found online, in research papers, in books, or talking directly to believers, anybody who can provide a clear definition of what “physical” means as an ontological primitive.

In the hopes, Stu, that you address the content of what I’m writing, I’ll review the points I’ve made here:

1. The “moon” i was referring to which does not exist apart from human perception is the human percept “moon.” The essential, fundamental, ontological status of what it is that provides the stimulus for that percept is not known by scientific methods.
2. As a psychologist who has administered over 2000 IQ tests and is quite familiar with the statistics, research methods and decades of conversations about the nature of what is and is not measured, I can tell you, there is general agreement that IQ tests do NOT measure something that can be considered “general intelligence.” I often wrote this in evaluations for concerned parents who didn’t understand how their children could not do well in school but have high IQs, or do well in school with relatively low IQs. IQ tests measure a specific set of skills, such as a limited kind of cognitive reasoning, visual spatial skills, speed of visual, aural and cognitive processing, and a few others, but not general intelligence. Intelligence was first attempted to be measured a bit over 100 years ago, not thousands.
3. While there are obviously many definitions of the phenomenological experience of physical — for example, as the basis of our bodies, there is no clear definition of “physical” as an ontological primitive.