The Case Against Reality - Dr. Hoffman

[Veritas Aequitas]

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."

Note what-appears-to-you is never THAT-which-appear.
How do you know what-appears-to-your-mind is really the That-which-appear.
There is no certainty what you think is the 'real apple' you see is really a real apple.
Read this from Bertrand Russell;

Ch. I: Appearance and Reality
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Probl ... nd_Reality

Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.
When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy—for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically, after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.

To be a serious philosopher, one cannot banked solely on common sense, but rather should use the 'philosophical sense'.
Not only Russell questioned 'what is the real table' he raised the doubt;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

There is no need for a real apple or other physical object for scientist to study "models," of, "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks."

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Nah! Hoffman stated evolution has "hidden" from us the really-real and gives us only the empirically-real which is what is observed and experienced.

What is empirically-real is the apple on the tree which can be plucked and eaten when ripen.

What is more truthful and more real about the apple is when we can know the specific number of molecules and atoms that particular apple is make of and how they are structured within the apple.
Surely to state, the specific apple-X on the table is comprised of n-numbers of ABC molecules and XYZ atoms combined an structure in certain ways is more truthful [more real] than merely stating 'that is an apple I see on the table'.

Similarly, in contrast to stating 'that is a car-X in the garage' it would be more truthful [more real] to state 'there is a car in the garage of certain make with such and such detailed specification,'
better still if we can quantify the molecules and atoms the car is made of.
In this case and in practice, it is not practical and perhaps worthless to obtain such more- realistic details of the car-X in the garage.

However in philosophy when we are dealing with the finer aspects of reality we need to deliberate on the details of what is more-real and more-truthful than what is common sense.
This is why metaphysics and ontology is brought into account.

There are very real and heavy consequences when we get it wrong with reality using common sense.
This is especially so when we use common sense and pure reason to jump to the conclusion that God exists because creations must have a creator, thus God exists as the creator.
However the conclusion of such a common sense had led theists to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of their God. This terrible evil is very evident and indisputable.

[commonsense]

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.

Nah! Hoffman stated evolution has "hidden" from us the really-real and gives us only the empirically-real which is what is observed and experienced.

What is empirically-real is the apple on the tree which can be plucked and eaten when ripen.

What is more truthful and more real about the apple is when we can know the specific number of molecules and atoms that particular apple is make of and how they are structured within the apple.
Surely to state, the specific apple-X on the table is comprised of n-numbers of ABC molecules and XYZ atoms combined an structure in certain ways is more truthful [more real] than merely stating 'that is an apple I see on the table'.

Similarly, in contrast to stating 'that is a car-X in the garage' it would be more truthful [more real] to state 'there is a car in the garage of certain make with such and such detailed specification,'
better still if we can quantify the molecules and atoms the car is made of.
In this case and in practice, it is not practical and perhaps worthless to obtain such more- realistic details of the car-X in the garage.

However in philosophy when we are dealing with the finer aspects of reality we need to deliberate on the details of what is more-real and more-truthful than what is common sense.
This is why metaphysics and ontology is brought into account.

There are very real and heavy consequences when we get it wrong with reality using common sense.
This is especially so when we use common sense and pure reason to jump to the conclusion that God exists because creations must have a creator, thus God exists as the creator.
However the conclusion of such a common sense had led theists to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of their God. This terrible evil is very evident and indisputable.

I wish I had put it this way!

[RCSaunders]

To be a serious philosopher, one cannot banked solely on common sense ...

If you think I'm advocating, "common sense," over rigorous reason, I am sorry I gave that impression. There is no way to know the truth other than clear non-contradictory reason.

I have no idea who you think a, "serious philosopher," might be, but if Russell is an example, he is an example of all that is wrong with what is called philosophy, especially all philosophers since Hume.

There is no need for a real apple or other physical object for scientist to study "models," of, "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks."

Then what do they study? They do not study models, they create the models to explain what they study, the actual chemical elements, which atoms were visualized to explain their properties, the behavior of actual physical bodies for which the concepts of mass, momentum, and gravity were formed to explain the behavior of those bodies.

I think you got your ideas from so-called, "serious philosophers," or some other pseudo-intellecutal academic con men. I believe you are too intelligent to have fallen for that nonsense on your own.

[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.

Nah! Hoffman stated evolution has "hidden" from us the really-real and gives us only the empirically-real which is what is observed and experienced.

One might take philosophy a little more seriously if philosophers actually learned something from past philosophical dead-ends, but in fact, they just keep repeating the same philosophical nonsense with different terminology.

Hoffman's is just the latest version of Plato's cave. "What you see is not real because the real is hidden by (pick any of the latest irrational explanations), and the really real is different (in some inexplicable way) from the world we actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste.

It is just that kind of irrational belief in some ineffable reality that is beyond human comprehension that is the basis for all religions and superstitions. You have it backwards:

This is especially so when we use common sense and pure reason to jump to the conclusion that God exists because creations must have a creator, thus God exists as the creator.
However the conclusion of such a common sense had led theists to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of their God. This terrible evil is very evident and indisputable.

No rigorous reason, not even, "common sense," leads to the kind of irrational belief in some mystical intangible reality behind the actual physical world we experience and live in. Only religionists, Platonists, and pseudo-intellectuals like Hoffman could believe and promote such destructive ideas, and, of course, those who swallow their nonsense.

[Atla]

VA thinks that the only alternative to absolute mind-dependence is absolute mind-independence. One has to be pretty dense to not realize that that's a false dichotomy, and that both these extreme positions are wrong.

[jayjacobus]

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.

The apple looks real. It feels real. It tastes real. Most people take for granted that the apple IS real.

If you assume the apple is not real, why not admit that the apple could actually be real? I know you don't know. If you decide to think the apple is real, then you will settle the issue and if you don't, I know you are forever stuck between a rock and a hard place for no reason other than you want to be puzzled.

[commonsense]

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.

The apple looks real. It feels real. It tastes real. Most people take for granted that the apple IS real.

If you assume the apple is not real, why not admit that the apple could actually be real? I know you don't know. If you decide to think the apple is real, then you will settle the issue and if you don't, I know you are forever stuck between a rock and a hard place for no reason other than you want to be puzzled.

Puzzle me some evidence that reality really exists.

[jayjacobus]

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.

The apple looks real. It feels real. It tastes real. Most people take for granted that the apple IS real.

If you assume the apple is not real, why not admit that the apple could actually be real? I know you don't know. If you decide to think the apple is real, then you will settle the issue and if you don't, I know you are forever stuck between a rock and a hard place for no reason other than you want to be puzzled.

Puzzle me some evidence that reality really exists.

The apple looks real. It feels real. It tastes real. That's enough evidence for me.

That may be indirect evidence but it is evidence.

[RCSaunders]

Puzzle me some evidence that reality really exists.

Do you doubt that anything exists? I'm asking, because there are those who say they do, and I haven't seen whether you make that claim or not. If you don't believe anything exists you can disregard the next questions.

If you do believe something exists, whatever that something is, that is what is meant by reality. So the question is not, "does reality exist?" but, "what is the nature of reality," or, "what is the nature of that which really exists?" What do you believe really exists?

As for evidence, if you believe anything exists, whatever you base that belief on is your evidence. It may not be evidence to jayjacobus or to me, but it is evidence to you isn't it?

[commonsense]

Puzzle me some evidence that reality really exists.

Do you doubt that anything exists? I'm asking, because there are those who say they do, and I haven't seen whether you make that claim or not. If you don't believe anything exists you can disregard the next questions.

If you do believe something exists, whatever that something is, that is what is meant by reality. So the question is not, "does reality exist?" but, "what is the nature of reality," or, "what is the nature of that which really exists?" What do you believe really exists?

As for evidence, if you believe anything exists, whatever you base that belief on is your evidence. It may not be evidence to jayjacobus or to me, but it is evidence to you isn't it?

Nice argument on your part, but I don’t believe anything exists.

[commonsense]

The apple looks real. It feels real. It tastes real. Most people take for granted that the apple IS real.

If you assume the apple is not real, why not admit that the apple could actually be real? I know you don't know. If you decide to think the apple is real, then you will settle the issue and if you don't, I know you are forever stuck between a rock and a hard place for no reason other than you want to be puzzled.

Puzzle me some evidence that reality really exists.

The apple looks real. It feels real. It tastes real. That's enough evidence for me.

That may be indirect evidence but it is evidence.

There’s the rub. What is sufficient evidence for you is not for me. It makes sense that you believe the apple is real based on your acceptance of the evidence.

I find the evidence lacking in that a) the senses can be mistaken and 2) even if the senses were reliable, I still don’t know what happens to the apple if I am not looking, touching or tasting it.

Does it disintegrate? Does it evaporate? You may assure me that it does not, but why would I take your word for it when you could just as well be a metaphysical zombie?

[Skepdick]

What do you believe really exists?

I'll give you exactly the same answer Quine gives. I believe that everything exists. Obviously.

And I hope the word "everything" requires no further elucidation.

[RCSaunders]

Puzzle me some evidence that reality really exists.

Do you doubt that anything exists? I'm asking, because there are those who say they do, and I haven't seen whether you make that claim or not. If you don't believe anything exists you can disregard the next questions.

If you do believe something exists, whatever that something is, that is what is meant by reality. So the question is not, "does reality exist?" but, "what is the nature of reality," or, "what is the nature of that which really exists?" What do you believe really exists?

As for evidence, if you believe anything exists, whatever you base that belief on is your evidence. It may not be evidence to jayjacobus or to me, but it is evidence to you isn't it?

Nice argument on your part, but I don’t believe anything exists.

It wasn't meant so much as an argument but a way of getting clarification. If that's your view, there is really nothing to argue about. It is a peculiar view, though, it seems to me. Even a solipsist believes their own consciousness (self) exists.

[RCSaunders]

What do you believe really exists?

I believe that everything exists.

And I hope the word "everything" requires no further elucidation.

So do I. No explanation is needed.

I do not believe everything exists in the same way, however.