The Case Against Reality - Dr. Hoffman

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Therefore it is very dumb for the group of investors to rely on what they see without taking into account of the TIME-LAG that what they saw could not have existed in real time."

How direct realism addresses time lag is the point of my excerpt above, so I'm not seein' how my view is shortsighted. No, my view is spot on.

But direct realism when influenced by TIME-LAG generate empirical illusions thus vulnerable to falsehoods.
Thus it is not credible to hold on to a position where there are possible 'half-cooked' truths.

#
"common sense do has its pros but it cannot be relied upon on more matters that are more serious to humanity"

As I say upthread: when I promote or defend common sense I'm referring to sumthin' much closer to Thomas Reid's than Walker's described collection of randomly acquired prejudices.


Hoffman is wrong.

Not sure of this point, so skipped.

[RCSaunders]

I apprehend the world 'as is'. I don't create models of the world: I see, smell, taste, touch, hear the world. Now, my senses are limited and my perspective is singular, so I don't apprehend the world in its entirety, but I do apprehend it, and what I apprehend is accurate.

The apple on the table is pretty much as I perceive it, and that apple (and the table it sits on) are independently real.

I think Hoffman is wrong.

You are right. Hoffman is just another of an endless parade of academics denying knowledge and reality.

[RCSaunders]

Consider this, it would be more realistic to say,
I ate [interacted] with that identified "cluster of molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks which could be waves or particles"
that to say, I ate that 'apple'.
Agree?

Henry's right. An apple is an apple and it is the realistic thing the sciences have to study to discover, the "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks," which are only explanations of the nature of the actual apple, just as it appears on the table. Without the very real apple, their could be none of the scientific, "models," of, "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks."

[RCSaunders]

Henry

No, we don't and we shouldn't. Abandoning common sense has led to all manner of stupid shit bein' adopted by otherwise reasonable human beings.

Very true. The disastrous effects of experts have been so thorough that society as a whole doesn't even know what common sense is and associates it with indoctrination and gullibility. A person then is attracted to the form of indoctrination they are taught to respect and call it education. The kid with common sense who sees that the emperor has no clothes stands on the sidelines thinking "who are these idiots?

Very good. And there is no shortage of idiots who are commonly academic professors of philosophy.

[RCSaunders]

The fact that con men swindle by appealing to common sense conveniently gets ignored in the passive-aggressive assertion of belief in common sense, which after all, is nothing more than a past collection of randomly acquired prejudices applied to new situations and leading to sales in T-shirts that read: Been there, done that.

I doubt very much if any successful con man makes his appeal to common sense. The most successful con men I know are those who appeal to some pseudo-science or arguments that true knowledge is not possible (and therefore we should take their enlightened word in place of our own clear reasoning) and are usually academics trying put over an agenda.

Unfortunately, some of what you say about, "common sense," is true, because most people are gullible and believe whatever they are taught and their idea of common sense is actually nonsense. What those who advocate common sense mean are those things which are obviously true to any moderately intelligent person who can think for themselves, such as, if you do not want to get wet, you don't stand out in the rain, and you cannot have your cake and eat it to. Those who oppose that kind of simple clear reasoning use arguments like Dr. Hoffman and the wife caught in bed with another man by her husband, "are you going to believe your own eyes and common sense rather than the explanation of your brilliant loving wife?"

[RCSaunders]

Science do not focus on reality [philosophical realism] but it merely focus on what is empirically real.

How odd! The, "empirically real," is exactly the thing Hoffman denies.

[commonsense]

Consider this, it would be more realistic to say,
I ate [interacted] with that identified "cluster of molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks which could be waves or particles"
that to say, I ate that 'apple'.
Agree?

Henry's right. An apple is an apple and it is the realistic thing the sciences have to study to discover, the "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks," which are only explanations of the nature of the actual apple, just as it appears on the table. Without the very real apple, their could be none of the scientific, "models," of, "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks."

Science may have had to study the apple in order to discover the molecules etc, however there would be no apple if not for the molecules etc that comprise it—regardless of whether those elements had yet been discovered.

Furthermore, one could say “I consumed an apple” or “I consumed the skin of an apple, the meat of an apple, the seeds of an apple and the stem of an apple.” The former assumes knowledge of the composition of an apple and conveniently applies a kind of shorthand in the form of a label. The later makes no such assumption but instead spells out specific components of an apple in a tedious yet accurate fashion.

Likewise, one could say “I consumed molecules etc (of an apple)” referring realistically to a finer level of detail. Similarly, consider “I crossed the stream” v. “I crossed the running body of water” v. “I walked from one side to the other of a volume of hydrogen and oxygen molecules in motion.”

Common sense says that the label is preferred in everyday conversation over the more realistic but unwieldy list of details. Yet VA’s metaphysical evaluation of an apple need not be trifled with.

[jayjacobus]

The significant contrast is between knowledge from common sense which is not soundly justified and scientific knowledge which is justified true beliefs.

When you say reality doesn't exist, that has no scientific explanation.

This depend on whose definition of 'reality.'
Reality does not exist in this case refer to that of the Philosophical Realist.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
...
Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

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.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Re your "When you say reality [of the Philosophical Realist] doesn't exist, that has no scientific explanation."

The above is purely philosophical and beyond the Scientific realm, as such there is no need for scientific explanation.

Science do not justify such a philosophical realists' reality but merely assumed such a reality exists.

Science do not focus on reality [philosophical realism] but it merely focus on what is empirically real.

Scientists (and many people) ACCEPT that the apple is real. Realists PRESUME that the apple is real. Without evidence you ASSUME the apple is not real.

[henry quirk]

"But direct realism when influenced by TIME-LAG generate empirical illusions thus vulnerable to falsehoods."

Direct realism isn't influenced by time lag, it takes time lag into account There's no empirical illusions generated by direct realism. Quite the opposite. Direct realism dispels illusions.

Hoffman, on the other hand, generates nuthin' but illusions. He's a snake oil salesman.

[commonsense]

When you say reality doesn't exist, that has no scientific explanation.

This depend on whose definition of 'reality.'
Reality does not exist in this case refer to that of the Philosophical Realist.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
...
Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

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.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Re your "When you say reality [of the Philosophical Realist] doesn't exist, that has no scientific explanation."

The above is purely philosophical and beyond the Scientific realm, as such there is no need for scientific explanation.

Science do not justify such a philosophical realists' reality but merely assumed such a reality exists.

Science do not focus on reality [philosophical realism] but it merely focus on what is empirically real.

Scientists (and many people) ACCEPT that the apple is real. Realists PRESUME that the apple is real. Without evidence you ASSUME the apple is not real.

Scientists (and many people) ASSUME that the apple is real. Without EVIDENCE that the Apple is real, you must assume the apple is not real.

You only believe that the apple is real because you believe an object doesn’t depend on being observed to be real.

[henry quirk]

[RCSaunders]

Science may have had to study the apple in order to discover the molecules etc, however there would be no apple if not for the molecules etc that comprise it—regardless of whether those elements had yet been discovered.

It is actually the other way around. There are certainly apples, but if there had never been any apples there would be nothing for the humanly developed method of science to study and theorize the chemical elements, molecules, nature of botany and the physical sciences as a way of understanding what apples and all other physical entities are. I'm sure that at least the chemistry and sub-atomic theories are correct and that all the sub-atomic particles exist (thought their exact nature cannot be perfectly identified--waves, particles, forces, etc.) are true enough, but they do not mean a thing if the entities of our everyday experience they are supposed to explain do not exist and have the nature they have. No physical science can explain why an apple tastes like an apple or even looks like an apple or why there must be life for there to be apples or what life is.

Common sense says that the label is preferred in everyday conversation over the more realistic but unwieldy list of details. Yet VA’s metaphysical evaluation of an apple need not be trifled with.

The whole nature of knowledge is simplification. The ability to form concepts that subsume many details makes it possible to hold in consciousness what would be impossible without that simplification. It is why scientists use the term, "light-year," rather than the detailed "9.46 trillion kilometres (5.88 trillion miles) distance light travels in a year," or the term, "penicillin," rather than "a four-membered β-lactam ring fused to a five-membered thiazolidine ring."

A list of the chemical or sub-atomic components of an entity is not a description of that entity. It is not enough to name all the components, how they are put together and their structure are addition aspects that components alone would fail to describe. The word water is the correct rational (common sense) way to refer to the chemical compound of hydrogen and oxygen we drink, but water is not just hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen peroxide is also a chemical compound of hydrogen and oxygen, but it is poisonous.

[commonsense]

Science may have had to study the apple in order to discover the molecules etc, however there would be no apple if not for the molecules etc that comprise it—regardless of whether those elements had yet been discovered.

It is actually the other way around. There are certainly apples, but if there had never been any apples there would be nothing for the humanly developed method of science to study and theorize the chemical elements, molecules, nature of botany and the physical sciences as a way of understanding what apples and all other physical entities are. I'm sure that at least the chemistry and sub-atomic theories are correct and that all the sub-atomic particles exist (thought their exact nature cannot be perfectly identified--waves, particles, forces, etc.) are true enough, but they do not mean a thing if the entities of our everyday experience they are supposed to explain do not exist and have the nature they have. No physical science can explain why an apple tastes like an apple or even looks like an apple or why there must be life for there to be apples or what life is.

Common sense says that the label is preferred in everyday conversation over the more realistic but unwieldy list of details. Yet VA’s metaphysical evaluation of an apple need not be trifled with.

The whole nature of knowledge is simplification. The ability to form concepts that subsume many details makes it possible to hold in consciousness what would be impossible without that simplification. It is why scientists use the term, "light-year," rather than the detailed "9.46 trillion kilometres (5.88 trillion miles) distance light travels in a year," or the term, "penicillin," rather than "a four-membered β-lactam ring fused to a five-membered thiazolidine ring."

A list of the chemical or sub-atomic components of an entity is not a description of that entity. It is not enough to name all the components, how they are put together and their structure are addition aspects that components alone would fail to describe. The word water is the correct rational (common sense) way to refer to the chemical compound of hydrogen and oxygen we drink, but water is not just hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen peroxide is also a chemical compound of hydrogen and oxygen, but it is poisonous.

We’re not going to agree about which way around reality is, but to the rest I say yes indeed.

[Dubious]

The Case Against Reality dares us to question everything we thought we knew about the world we see.

Question the nature of reality as much as you like. The ancient Greeks were doing it long before we dared to question everything. Such queries yield nothing except a plethora of speculations. In the meantime - which is only as long lasting as the human race itself - we're anchored in the reality which questions whether its real. What is decidedly real for the author are the royalties of another useless book! It's reminiscent of those who had NDE experiences having to write about it as if there were some new inherent revelation to be gleaned from it.

Books like these are fabricated intellectual con games meant to elicit income which is VERY real to the writer.

Instead of perusing whether OUR reality is real, it's far more interesting to ponder whether Reality exists in the plural as REALITIES without subsuming other variations as unreal.

[Mrmojo121]

I call BS....reality is, as reality was and always will be....there is no hidden agenda, there’s no matrix, or things don’t exist unless we perceive it....after all we are just mammals....blood and guts, just because our intelligence has increased over time, and we live, and have lived for sometime in a somewhat civilized world, where we get time to ‘think’, ‘ponder’, our existence, doesn’t make our existence any more in depth than just feral entities evolved to think and create....

Just my ‘opinion’....