Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:23 am
Where is your 'third'
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:33 am
1. Mind independence (realism)
2. Mind dependence (anti-realism)
3. Mind inter-dependence (model dependent realism). <------ OVER HERE
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:23 am
fourth, fifth and more boxes?
Draw more distinctions and add them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:23 am
All Philosophies are boxed into two main subsets, the rest are merely sub-subsets.
False dichotomy. Model-depenent realism is neither a realist; nor an anti-realist position.
The map is not (and never will be) the territory. Different maps can (and do) exist for the same territory.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:20 am
1. Mind independence (realism)
2. Mind dependence (anti-realism)
3. Mind inter-dependence (model dependent realism). <------ OVER HERE
Show me proof, anti-realism is "mind dependence."
Philosophical Anti-realism is any philosophy that is not Philosophical Realism.
"model dependent realism" as per its inherent nature is not Philosophical Realism [as defined] thus it is Philosophical Anti-realism because it is not independent of the human conception scheme.
Whatever model is formulated within "model dependent realism" it is done via some humans' conception scheme.
In metaphysics, Philosophical Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
-wiki
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:40 am
Show me proof, anti-realism is "mind dependence."
Idiot. You don't even know what "proof" is but you keep asking for it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:40 am
Philosophical Anti-realism is any philosophy that is not Philosophical Realism.
Model-depepdent realism is A (not ANY) philosophy that is neither Philosophical Realism nor Philosophical Anti-realism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:40 am
Whatever model is formulated within "model dependent realism" it is done via some humans' conception scheme
Do you know of any other kind?
Can you give me an example of a philosophy, ANY philosophy that is NOT a "humans' conception scheme"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:40 am
Show me proof, anti-realism is "mind dependence."
Idiot. You don't even know what "proof" is but you keep asking for it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:40 am
Philosophical Anti-realism is any philosophy that is not Philosophical Realism.
Model-depepdent realism is A (not ANY) philosophy that is neither Philosophical Realism nor Philosophical Anti-realism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:40 am
Whatever model is formulated within "model dependent realism" it is done via some humans' conception scheme
Do you know of any other kind?
Can you give me an example of a philosophy, ANY philosophy that is NOT a "humans' conception scheme"?
It is because ALL Philosophies are human conception schemes that
Philosophical Realism [as defined] is not tenable to stand by itself, it is not realistic.
Philosophical Realists simply grab the term 'realism' for themselves when in fact what they claimed is not realistic at all.
Yet the Philosophical Realists [reality is independent of human conception schemes] claimed they are realistic because of ignorance and psychological desperations.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:05 am
It is because ALL Philosophies are human conception scheme that
Philosophical Realism [as defined] is not tenable to stand by itself, it is not realistic.
Philosophical Realists simply grab the term 'realism' for themselves when in fact what they claimed is not realistic at all.
Yet the Philosophical Realists [reality is independent of human conception schemes] claimed they are realistic because of ignorance and psychological desperations.
Human conception schemes is not ALL that Philosophies are! Conceptual schemes serve a purpose. A map that is completely out of touch with the territory is a useless map.
That is why anti-realism is not tenable to stand by itself either. It's not useful for navigating all those things that keep happening to you that are out of your control.
Objectifying what I am as a subjective entity is making a self of what I am. As soon as this concept becomes a reflex action (usually very early in life) I am in bondage to that concept.
Losing one's 'self' in what is Here is finding that 'Here" is what one is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:05 am
It is because ALL Philosophies are human conception scheme that
Philosophical Realism [as defined] is not tenable to stand by itself, it is not realistic.
Philosophical Realists simply grab the term 'realism' for themselves when in fact what they claimed is not realistic at all.
Yet the Philosophical Realists [reality is independent of human conception schemes] claimed they are realistic because of ignorance and psychological desperations.
Human conception schemes is not ALL that Philosophies are! Conceptual schemes serve a purpose. A map that is completely out of touch with the territory is a useless map.
That is why anti-realism is not tenable to stand by itself either. It's not useful for navigating all those things that keep happening to you that are out of your control.
This is where you are ignorant.
The territory and the map emerge and are GIVEN spontaneously and simultaneously without one being differentiated nor are independent of each other.
That is why anti-realism is not tenable to stand by itself either. It's not useful for navigating all those things that keep happening to you that are out of your control.
Ignorant again.
Philosophical Anti-Realism [Kant, Buddhism, etc.] claim the human person is part and parcel of reality.
The point is when things keep happening to one that are out of one's control which one is related to, the most effective approach is to control one's sufferings instead of trying to control the uncontrollable.
It is stupid [like you wanting] to control to uncontrollable.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:51 am
The territory and the map emerge and are GIVEN spontaneously and simultaneously without one being differentiated nor are independent of each other.
When you learn to question the map, as you explore the territory - then you will become a scientist.
The map is an approximation of the territory but over time becomes more accurate but it will always be an approximation regardless of accuracy
But they are independent of each other as one is what objectively exists and the other is an abstract concept within human minds of what exists
The only reason the map exists is because human minds have developed a complex pre frontal cortex that can think in profoundly abstract terms
Without that there would be no map and before the evolution of homo sapiens there was none because the Universes existence is not predicated on beings with the capacity to understand it in any way - that we can is merely incidental
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:23 am
The map is an approximation of the territory but over time becomes more accurate but it will always be an approximation regardless of accuracy
But they are independent of each other as one is what objectively exists and the other is an abstract concept within human minds of what exists
The only reason the map exists is because human minds have developed a complex pre frontal cortex that can think in profoundly abstract terms
Without that there would be no map and before the evolution of homo sapiens there was none because the Universes existence is not predicated on beings with the capacity to understand it in any way - that we can is merely incidental
Common sense, empirically and intellectually, yes the territory and the map are different.
However on a meta-level both are merely emergent from the same reality as all-there-in in which the person, the maps are part and parcel of reality.
If the above are not viewed as what they are, i.e. emergent as part-parcel of the whole, then that will give way to a claim there is something independent of the human conditions and the environment i.e. leading to a claim of an independent God and a soul that can survive after physical death as a forever slave to God.
They are both emergent but scientists do not generally treat the map in that way
They only see the Universe as being emergent even though it may also be infinite
