Major Premise: Reality Interdependent with Humans

[TimeSeeker]

"You only get to utter this phrase BECAUSE the Moon is hanging there (independent of you, me, him, her, etc)."

Yes, exactly.

It seems you shamelessly indulged yourself in some historical revisionism there.

If the moon wasn't exactly where it is - you wouldn't exist.

I think that makes you very much dependent on it.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts... ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism#Th ... _its_parts )

[-1-]

So what you're trying to say is: the human mind is part of, continuous with reality?

And what if I say this:

Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
Minor: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is reality
Conclusion: The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is interdependent with the human condition.

The logic, Atla, in your argument, is solid. But for an argument to have a bite, that is, to be convincing and to be irrefutable, the logic must be free of errors (yours is), and the premises it takes as starting points must be true, which yours are not.

There is virtually no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This negates the truth of one of your premises, therefore your argument is invalid, despite the logic it used was good.

Yes that's my point, the argument is invalid. To be honest I still don't understand what VA means by reality, interdependent, human condition.

Ah. So you, Atla, wanted to say that premise 1 (the major) is invalid. You could have said that, but then again, it would have made it easier for us to understand you. What a gyp, understanding is.

Well. I don't know what VA means by interdependence, either; how I see it is one can't act without affecting the other, and vice versa.

This is a sticky issue. We haven't really examined what effect the moon has on man's mind, never mind the opposite way. Causation (which is the bread-and-butter of affecting, on which interdependence is based) is not easy to establish, and mostly it is assumed to happen, without proof or even evidence. We just KNOW causation is precise, because if there were imprecise causation, there would be chaos,and if there were no causation, nothing would happen.

So this interdependence thing is hard to examine, and we can say safely that it exists, but to give numerical values to the strength of a particular cause affecting another entity by one entity is impossible. Other than physical bodies affecting each other in a physical way. But introduce the mind, which is not physical, although just as much part of the cause-effect chain as physical bodies, and bang, you can no longer use kilogrammsecondsquares or kilometresperhour safely any more.

[henry quirk]

"If the moon wasn't exactly where it is - you wouldn't exist."

Yep, but that's not what I posted about.

CLEARLY, I said the moon is not dependent on us, so there is no interdependence of the moon with humans, or of reality with humans.

As you point out: we humans may owe our origin to the moon bein' in the right place, having the right mass, etc. but this only means humans possibly depended on the moon for our beginnings, not that the moon depended or depends on us.

Simply: dependence of one on the other is a one-way street; interdependence is a two-way street.

Now, I'm thinkin' I've clarified sufficiently to satisfy any sensible person.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your major premise is specious.

Details of counter arguments?

There's no counter an empty argument that means nothing. The phrase "All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition" is pretentious garbage. Your major premise is specious bullshit.

It might as well say 'all reality is as described, in so far as descriptions describe reality'. Or any other hallmark level pseudery you can fit on a bumper sticker.

[Impenitent]

"Esse est percipi" - Berkeley

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

So what you're trying to say is: the human mind is part of, continuous with reality?

And what if I say this:

Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
Minor: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is reality
Conclusion: The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is interdependent with the human condition.

The logic, Atla, in your argument, is solid. But for an argument to have a bite, that is, to be convincing and to be irrefutable, the logic must be free of errors (yours is), and the premises it takes as starting points must be true, which yours are not.

There is virtually no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This negates the truth of one of your premises, therefore your argument is invalid, despite the logic it used was good.

Agree with -1.
The minor premise is false because the FSM does not exist in reality.
Whatever exists in reality must be proven to exist in reality either Scientifically or by empirical-rational arguments.

Your minor premise would be true as follows;

Minor: The claim - that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists - is reality,
i.e. the claim exists but not the FSM.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The issue is controversial; many scientists claim Science [classical] is Philosophical Realism not Philosophical anti-realism. However note the observer's effect, theory of relativity, and Wave Function Collapse where the observers is an integral part of the theory.

You seem to forget, VA, that there are two observers, and you identify the two as one, by one whopper of an equivocation fallacy.

Either one, two or many observers, the bottom line is one cannot separate the observers, i.e. humans from the conclusion in the ultimate sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If X is interdependent with Y, it means X and Y are not absolutely independent.

I don't think even realists claim that some things are absolutely independent. In that case they couldn't even talk about them / couldn't even have a way of knowing that they even exist.

You got a point with your doubts above.
But philosophical realists do insist and claim things out there are absolutely independent of the human mind. Their claim is, external things exist and humans interact with them from the waves emitted which reach the human brain to be perceived and interpreted as real.

The philosophical realist's ace card is this argument;
The moon pre-existed humans and if all human are extinct due to nukes or WMDs, the "moon" will continue to "exists" in the future and thereafter.
This is getting more refine but there are counter arguments to this.

I think what they usually mean is: there is the mind and there is the outer reality, and these two don't interact, don't disturb each other. And yet, thanks to Magic, they are still somehow in the presence of each other.

Yes, they insist there is an absolutely independent external world out there independent of the human mind. Note Moore's proof of an external world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
What they are blind is they don't seem to realize, in the conception of reality, they are part and parcel of that reality which they cannot extricate from to form an ultimate and absolute independent view.

This assumption was one of the fundamental assumptions of science. That we can remain perfectly objective, we can experiment with the universe without disturbing it. This view was thoroughly destroyed in the last 100 years, science refuted one of its fundamental assumptions (which I find kinda amusing I have to admit). Why this position is called realist is beyond me btw.

That early assumption of independence is applicable to classical Science, e.g. Newtonian which is still necessary and applicable at present.
This is why I mentioned Popper's - scientific theories are at best polished conjectures - and subjected to the relevant assumptions agreed by man.

]

The issue is controversial; many scientists claim Science [classical] is Philosophical Realism not Philosophical anti-realism. However note the observer's effect, theory of relativity, and Wave Function Collapse where the observers is an integral part of the theory.

Yes and no. These observers aren't the human mind, however the human mind as such an observer is interdependent with the outer reality.

It depends,
Classical Science, independence = yes,
Modern and QM, independence = no.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That moon hangin' in the sky, it's gonna do that whether I see it or not. No mind, no observer, is neccessary for it to hang there. It, the moon, exists independent of me, you, him, her.

So: no, reality is not interdependent with humans. We humans have the (perhaps unique) luxury of ascribing meaning to reality (or parts of reality); we get to 'name' things, hang labels on things, but those things (the swirl of the electron cloud, the light reaching across the void from Sol, the heat vent worm blindly rootin' for a meal, etc,) don't rely on humans to 'be'.

This is the typical ace card pulled out by the philosophical realists.

Note;

• 1. The statement "That moon hangin' in the sky" exists interdependently between what is out there an the human conditions [not restricted to mind].
  
  2. The elements 'moon' 'hanging' "in" and "the sky" are all human concepts thus dependent on the human conditions.
  
  3. What is moon is dependent on human sight, touch [for those who had landed on the moon] smell, taste, hear of elements of the moon. So it there a "moon" which is absolutely independent of human conditions.
  
  4. You may claim as above, the moon is a cluster of electrons, quarks, etc. But again this reality is based Science, i.e. human dependent. Worst, according to Popper, all scientific theories are polished human conjectures.
  
  5. You may claim the moon is made up of some fundamental thing more refined than quarks. In this case you are falling into the tunnel of infinite regression and there is no way one can arrive at an absolute final element of reality.
  Even if that is possible, it is only based on polished human conjectures.
  
  Note: Human Conditions = whatever it takes to be a human being.

Therefore it is futile to claim the moon is absolutely independent of the human conditions. It is as futile to claim all of reality which humans are part and parcel of is absolute independent of the human conditions.

Why do the majority has this heavy tendency to idealize the external world as absolutely independent of the human conditions?
The answer is because we have been programmed to do so for millions of years from a billions years old program as viewing thing outward from the eyes and body to facilitate survival. So the basis is psychological.

From this idea of independence, there arise the absolute independent God who promise salvation of eternal life in an independent heaven.

[TimeSeeker]

2. The elements 'moon' 'hanging' "in" and "the sky" are all human concepts thus dependent on the human conditions.

3. What is moon is dependent on human sight, touch [for those who had landed on the moon] smell, taste, hear of elements of the moon. So it there a "moon" which is absolutely independent of human conditions.

4. You may claim as above, the moon is a cluster of electrons, quarks, etc. But again this reality is based Science, i.e. human dependent. Worst, according to Popper, all scientific theories are polished human conjectures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

Constructivist epistemology is a branch in philosophy of science maintaining that scientific knowledge is constructed by the scientific community, who seek to measure and construct models of the natural world. Natural science therefore consists of mental constructs that aim to explain sensory experience and measurements.

5. You may claim the moon is made up of some fundamental thing more refined than quarks. In this case you are falling into the tunnel of infinite regression and there is no way one can arrive at an absolute final element of reality.
Even if that is possible, it is only based on polished human conjectures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.

From this idea of independence, there arise the absolute independent God who promise salvation of eternal life in an independent heaven.

Genesis 1:1 -> John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Translated from the original Greek

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, translit. logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason", is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth,

Nothing has changed in 2000 years. We just have much better "Logos".

[Atla]

Agree with -1.
The minor premise is false because the FSM does not exist in reality.
Whatever exists in reality must be proven to exist in reality either Scientifically or by empirical-rational arguments.

Your minor premise would be true as follows;

Minor: The claim - that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists - is reality,
i.e. the claim exists but not the FSM.

If X is interdependent with Y, it means X and Y are not absolutely independent.

I don't think even realists claim that some things are absolutely independent. In that case they couldn't even talk about them / couldn't even have a way of knowing that they even exist.

You got a point with your doubts above.
But philosophical realists do insist and claim things out there are absolutely independent of the human mind. Their claim is, external things exist and humans interact with them from the waves emitted which reach the human brain to be perceived and interpreted as real.

The philosophical realist's ace card is this argument;
The moon pre-existed humans and if all human are extinct due to nukes or WMDs, the "moon" will continue to "exists" in the future and thereafter.
This is getting more refine but there are counter arguments to this.

I think what they usually mean is: there is the mind and there is the outer reality, and these two don't interact, don't disturb each other. And yet, thanks to Magic, they are still somehow in the presence of each other.

Yes, they insist there is an absolutely independent external world out there independent of the human mind. Note Moore's proof of an external world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
What they are blind is they don't seem to realize, in the conception of reality, they are part and parcel of that reality which they cannot extricate from to form an ultimate and absolute independent view.

This assumption was one of the fundamental assumptions of science. That we can remain perfectly objective, we can experiment with the universe without disturbing it. This view was thoroughly destroyed in the last 100 years, science refuted one of its fundamental assumptions (which I find kinda amusing I have to admit). Why this position is called realist is beyond me btw.

That early assumption of independence is applicable to classical Science, e.g. Newtonian which is still necessary and applicable at present.
This is why I mentioned Popper's - scientific theories are at best polished conjectures - and subjected to the relevant assumptions agreed by man.

]

The issue is controversial; many scientists claim Science [classical] is Philosophical Realism not Philosophical anti-realism. However note the observer's effect, theory of relativity, and Wave Function Collapse where the observers is an integral part of the theory.

Yes and no. These observers aren't the human mind, however the human mind as such an observer is interdependent with the outer reality.

It depends,
Classical Science, independence = yes,
Modern and QM, independence = no.

I still don't know what your point is. There is the Moon "out there", and there is a conception of the Moon "in my head".

None of that is absolutely independent. However when I'm gone, and the conception ot the Moon "in my head" is gone, the Moon "out there" will still be there, and it was also there before me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I still don't know what your point is. There is the Moon "out there", and there is a conception of the Moon "in my head".

None of that is absolutely independent. However when I'm gone, and the conception ot the Moon "in my head" is gone, the Moon "out there" will still be there, and it was also there before me.

I know the 'conception of the moon' in your head is gone when you are gone.
That is very obvious if viewed from that perspective.
However in the above you are not affirming a reality but an unreality because 'before' and 'after' you are gone are essentially speculations.

An interdependent reality is not solely of a conception but rather refer to an "emergence" of the moon in relation to the total human conditions amid the whole of reality.
The emergence of the reality of a moon is interdependent with the total human conditions and if the person is gone, there is no more emergence of reality.

How can one affirm anything as real in real time if one is gone?

[Atla]

I know the 'conception of the moon' in your head is gone when you are gone.
That is very obvious if viewed from that perspective.
However in the above you are not affirming a reality but an unreality because 'before' and 'after' you are gone are essentially speculations.

(I'm looking at the whole topic from an absolutist point of view.)

I can't make sense of this. Reality just is, what do you mean by "affirm" reality, and what is "unreality"?
Everything is ultimately a speculation, however the simplest speculation is that the human mind isn't something special, it's just a part of reality, the same way the Moon "out there" is a part of reality.

An interdependent reality is not solely of a conception but rather refer to an "emergence" of the moon in relation to the total human conditions amid the whole of reality.
The emergence of the reality of a moon is interdependent with the total human conditions and if the person is gone, there is no more emergence of reality.

How can one affirm anything as real in real time if one is gone?

I can't make sense of this. Things don't "emerge" and there are no such specific "relations", things just are. And why is my affirmation needed for anything.

[TimeSeeker]

Things don't "emerge" and there are no such specific "relations", things just are.

Things don't emerge, but phenomena do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Quantum phenomena emerge from ???
Matter emerges from quantum phenomena.
The Moon emerges from matter.

In fact - even "things" is a human notion! All categories are artificial human notions.

The universe just is. There are no "things" in The Universe.

The sum is greater than the sum of its parts is the central theme of Holism and systems thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

In my view, this is fundamentally the birth of theism: "It was Adler's opinion that holism is a concept that represents all of the wholes in the universe, and these wholes are the real factors in the universe."

Adler perceives wholes IN the universe. Adler doesn't perceive The Universe itself as a whole.

Obviously - to form a perception of The Universe as a "whole", you need to find a reference frame for The Observer. And God is born.
It is certainly a useful reference frame for thought-experiments and counter-factual thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_thinking

Some people just forget to come back down from it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I know the 'conception of the moon' in your head is gone when you are gone.
That is very obvious if viewed from that perspective.
However in the above you are not affirming a reality but an unreality because 'before' and 'after' you are gone are essentially speculations.

(I'm looking at the whole topic from an absolutist point of view.)

I can't make sense of this. Reality just is, what do you mean by "affirm" reality, and what is "unreality"?
Everything is ultimately a speculation, however the simplest speculation is that the human mind isn't something special, it's just a part of reality, the same way the Moon "out there" is a part of reality.

An interdependent reality is not solely of a conception but rather refer to an "emergence" of the moon in relation to the total human conditions amid the whole of reality.
The emergence of the reality of a moon is interdependent with the total human conditions and if the person is gone, there is no more emergence of reality.

How can one affirm anything as real in real time if one is gone?

I can't make sense of this. Things don't "emerge" and there are no such specific "relations", things just are. And why is my affirmation needed for anything.

Conventionally, there is the perception-in-mind and the-perceived.
Thus we could have the perception-of-an-apple-in-mind and the real-apple-on-the-table.



The above pic show a butterfly.
Sticking to the apple example,
the question is, is there a really real independent apple out there?

Note in reality, the said supposedly solid apple you can feel is changing all the time, so that is no specific apple but time related apple.
In addition the apple is more realistically a cluster of fast moving electrons or quarks that changes at split seconds.
A virus the size of an electron will never perceive the apple that you perceived or realized as a real apple.

In the above case, you cannot say the reality of an apple is just-is.
The reality of that thing is very conditional, i.e.;

• 1. a fruit labelled apple
  2. a cluster of n molecules
  3. a cluster of n electrons
  4. a bundle of waves - Wave Collapse Function
  5. a bundle of particles
  6. etc. etc.

The above variations is the reason why the 'apple' is an emergence relative to the recipe of elements entangling with the human conditions. It emerged interactively.

There is no absolute independent thing called an apple.