Reality is an Emergence

[tapaticmadness]

My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realist, especially of Kant's.

I'm going to reply to you, but right now I am going to go out and try to evade the police during this lockdown because of Covid-19. I'm going to look for a whole chicken I can cook in my toaster oven. I learned how to cook from my mother and she was a bad cook so now I am also. The boy who cooks and cleans for me is now stuck in his village unable to get out because there are no buses running.
I definitely have some ideas about the topic of realism vs. whatever it is you call your philosophy. I'll be back soon - or in jail.

I failed in my attempt to find a chicken. Everything, absolutely everything, is totally, completely, one hundred percent closed up tight, The only person I saw was a rather scraggly boy going into the side door of a pool hall. What to do? I think I will eat the food of the gods - ramen noodles, called Ra Ra or chow chow here. Those things are found everywhere in the world. A universal food.

So here's my take on the anti-realists. First let me describe just what a realist thinks is real. What an Idealist/nominalist like yourself thinks in "in the mind", a realist thinks is "out there, external to the mind". Those "out there" things exist independent of the one aware of them and they impress themselves on that one. That one becomes possessed by those Real Things. And those things are what you call ontological things, Universal Forms etc..

Here's a story I heard a few weeks ago from a friend of mind. He and his friend were walking at twilight near the edge of the jungle. Suddenly they both saw the form of a woman hang high in the trees. She had on a purple and red gown. They stared at her and then she disappeared. You could call that a religious vision, an hallucination, a ghost, an alien being - whatever you want. A realist, a classical extreme realist like me, would say that that thing was real, but not of the world. Here's a distinction between domestic and wild. Something that is domestic is something that belongs to the great family of things that is our world. It is interconnected and when it leaves it leaves a trace that it was there. A wild thing is something that is not of the great interconnectedness of worldly things. It leaves no trace that it was there. No evidence. An extreme realist believes in wild things and not only domesticated things. So now consider dreams and illusions and mistakes. Consider misprision, misreadings, misunderstandings. A realist will say they are all real things, but not things of the domesticated world. They are wild things from outside. They are not natural, but supernatural. And most certainly they are not "in the mind".

Therefore I would characterize the anti-realist as a family man, a domesticated sort, no wild other-worldly things. He is a natural man well-situated in the Interconnectedness of all things. He pushes those wild things into literature and then dismisses them. A realist will think literature is about the real. A Realist is more of an artist who believes in art as truth. He likes the Wild Things. He is bored with domestic life. He is probably not a good family man. And he is in a dangerous place. That scraggly boy I saw may have been one of those wild things, leaving no evidence he was there, able to commit the perfect crime.

[tapaticmadness]

I believe in the gods and I deal in the paranormal. Therefore I am of the lower classes, a non-Aryan dalit. I am not a writer, but I am amanuensis to the spirit world. I divide. And I cause trouble.

Outside the domestic world there is the unworld of the marginal. Away from reason and science, there are those of us who practice magic. It is all deception and untruth. It is art. It is the sham of the shaman.

I am of the world of fashion. Ephemeral things from the demi-monde. Prostitutes, faggots, the dark-skinned “ethnic”. The world of poets away from academia. The boys of Plato’s Academy now wandering in the cold.

I am Vyasa, the one who never dies. Ciramjivi. The gods have me by the balls. I am stuck. Fucked. Rooked.

My ancestors were the Vikings, the Norman Northmen, terrorists par excellence. Children of the Light. Breaking your eyes. Glass and bangles and bubble butt boys. Oh, Rimbaud.

I am Isadore Ducasse from Montevideo. A pile of videos to watch and archive in the long night. Parody and puck. Surrounded by Germans, I will die. A boy who fell.

My philosophy is disreputable. I am not of the Council of the High Minded. Suave atheism is not my style. I sit in dark restaurants and wait. I am the Virus.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realist, especially of Kant's.

I'm going to reply to you, but right now I am going to go out and try to evade the police during this lockdown because of Covid-19. I'm going to look for a whole chicken I can cook in my toaster oven. I learned how to cook from my mother and she was a bad cook so now I am also. The boy who cooks and cleans for me is now stuck in his village unable to get out because there are no buses running.
I definitely have some ideas about the topic of realism vs. whatever it is you call your philosophy. I'll be back soon - or in jail.

I failed in my attempt to find a chicken. Everything, absolutely everything, is totally, completely, one hundred percent closed up tight, The only person I saw was a rather scraggly boy going into the side door of a pool hall. What to do? I think I will eat the food of the gods - ramen noodles, called Ra Ra or chow chow here. Those things are found everywhere in the world. A universal food.

What about walking tru unblocked roads to the village and catch a chicken [or buy]?

So here's my take on the anti-realists. First let me describe just what a realist thinks is real. What an Idealist/nominalist like yourself thinks in "in the mind", a realist thinks is "out there, external to the mind". Those "out there" things exist independent of the one aware of them and they impress themselves on that one. That one becomes possessed by those Real Things. And those things are what you call ontological things, Universal Forms etc..

An idealist agree there is "an external world of objects" which is very obvious but insist such "an external world" exists with humans somehow partaking collectively in its emergence.
So if there are no humans at all, there is no such external world as realized by humans.

A realist claimed the external world exists absolutely independent of the human conditions individually and collectively.
So if humans are extinct, the "Sun" "Moon" and "all things" as realized by humans will still exist at they are in themselves. Note my use of "..."

Here's a story I heard a few weeks ago from a friend of mind. He and his friend were walking at twilight near the edge of the jungle. Suddenly they both saw the form of a woman hang high in the trees. She had on a purple and red gown. They stared at her and then she disappeared. You could call that a religious vision, an hallucination, a ghost, an alien being - whatever you want.
A realist, a classical extreme realist like me, would say that that thing was real, but not of the world. Here's a distinction between domestic and wild. Something that is domestic is something that belongs to the great family of things that is our world. It is interconnected and when it leaves it leaves a trace that it was there. A wild thing is something that is not of the great interconnectedness of worldly things. It leaves no trace that it was there. No evidence. An extreme realist believes in wild things and not only domesticated things. So now consider dreams and illusions and mistakes. Consider misprision, misreadings, misunderstandings. A realist will say they are all real things, but not things of the domesticated world. They are wild things from outside. They are not natural, but supernatural. And most certainly they are not "in the mind".

My friend did the same, i.e. walking with another friend near the edge of the jungle at around evening.
When they came back, they reported the saw a snake in the shade under a tree - supposedly poisonous. They quickly hastened back just in case there many of such.
The next day, on a bright sunny morning they went for a walk and has to pass the same place, this time on the exact spot they saw a snake, there is a piece of rope of the same length.

In this case, both had encountered an illusion the previous day.
How can you insist [as you stated above] the snake is the real thing but not of this world?
What is real is the rope - there is no another world for the snake.
What was 'snake' an illusion is merely represented by neural activities in the brain.

It is the same with hallucinations, hypnosis, and the likes.

Therefore I would characterize the anti-realist as a family man, a domesticated sort, no wild other-worldly things. He is a natural man well-situated in the Interconnectedness of all things. He pushes those wild things into literature and then dismisses them. A realist will think literature is about the real. A Realist is more of an artist who believes in art as truth. He likes the Wild Things. He is bored with domestic life. He is probably not a good family man. And he is in a dangerous place. That scraggly boy I saw may have been one of those wild things, leaving no evidence he was there, able to commit the perfect crime.

The anti-realist is realistic and rational thus not believing in 'wild things' which can potentially be very evil.
The anti-realist is realistic and when rational towards morality and ethics, always strive to do good only.

It is not all realists but
one of a type of realist, i.e. theists believe in a "wild thing" like God which had commanded believers to kill non-believers. This is so evident and God-driven killings has totaled to more than 200 millions killed since the claim of this wild thing.
There are so many schizo and others [driven by realism] who had killed many based on the voices and sights of wild things who ordered them to kill.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe in the gods and I deal in the paranormal. Therefore I am of the lower classes, a non-Aryan dalit. I am not a writer, but I am amanuensis to the spirit world. I divide. And I cause trouble.

Outside the domestic world there is the unworld of the marginal. Away from reason and science, there are those of us who practice magic. It is all deception and untruth. It is art. It is the sham of the shaman.

I am of the world of fashion. Ephemeral things from the demi-monde. Prostitutes, faggots, the dark-skinned “ethnic”. The world of poets away from academia. The boys of Plato’s Academy now wandering in the cold.

I am Vyasa, the one who never dies. Ciramjivi. The gods have me by the balls. I am stuck. Fucked. Rooked.

My ancestors were the Vikings, the Norman Northmen, terrorists par excellence. Children of the Light. Breaking your eyes. Glass and bangles and bubble butt boys. Oh, Rimbaud.

I am Isadore Ducasse from Montevideo. A pile of videos to watch and archive in the long night. Parody and puck. Surrounded by Germans, I will die. A boy who fell.

My philosophy is disreputable. I am not of the Council of the High Minded. Suave atheism is not my style. I sit in dark restaurants and wait. I am the Virus.

Personally you can be what you want to be.

However when you are within the mode of Philosophy [as in such a forum] you need to align with the norms of what is to be good so that you will not be a liability to humanity.

You cannot be selfish and think only of yourself, i.e. it is only me, - one gnat among 7 billion so no impact.
But via wisdom, if there are many such of negative individuals then collectively they are a liability to humanity's progress.

• E.g. Note the current COVID19 advise or "law", everyone must wear a mask, don't get out of the house and maintain social distancing.
  An individual will think his non-compliance is insignificant but failed to realize what if every individual thinks like him.
  Fact is there are many individuals who think their act is insignificant but the reality is the infection rate is expanding exponentially because of the ignorant and selfish individuals.

Thus there is a need for each of the individual[s] to think in terms of the greater good and this is not easy and many do not have the competence to do so.

Personally you can be what you want to be but you have to step up to think of the greater good -whatever the circumstances - thus the avoidance of wild things where it could be significant.
If you cannot step-up, too bad, hopefully more can step-up from future generations based on effective measures taken.

[tapaticmadness]

[
The anti-realist is realistic and rational thus not believing in 'wild things' which can potentially be very evil.
The anti-realist is realistic and when rational towards morality and ethics, always strive to do good only.

It is not all realists but
one of a type of realist, i.e. theists believe in a "wild thing" like God which had commanded believers to kill non-believers. This is so evident and God-driven killings has totaled to more than 200 millions killed since the claim of this wild thing.
There are so many schizo and others [driven by realism] who had killed many based on the voices and sights of wild things who ordered them to kill.

I got my chicken!! I'm so happy. It's before ten o'clock so the streets are full of people and the supermarket is open, though you have to wash your hands and put on sanitizer before you can go in. After ten, which is when I went yesterday, all the people will disappear. The idea of walking out to a village to get a chicken is impossible. This is a big city and the villages are too too far away. Anyway it's hot outside.

As for God being immoral, at least according to present human ideas on the matter, Yes, of course God is immoral. The very fact that people get old and die is immoral. Why do atheists like you always pick up on the immorality of God and then say that God doesn't exist? Reality is cruel and terrible things happen all the time. Our goal should be to seek safety, not reason that terror out of existence, which can't be done.

Here is my favorite story of the immorality of God - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents.

Here's what Martin Luther, the great reformer, had to say on the matter. He said by both the light of reason and scripture, God seems worse than the devil. And it is only in the light of glory, after death, that will we see the rightness of it all. I have pondered that often. He believed that we are all predestined to either Heaven or Hell and there is no getting around your destiny. He did not believe in freewill.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

[
The anti-realist is realistic and rational thus not believing in 'wild things' which can potentially be very evil.
The anti-realist is realistic and when rational towards morality and ethics, always strive to do good only.

It is not all realists but
one of a type of realist, i.e. theists believe in a "wild thing" like God which had commanded believers to kill non-believers. This is so evident and God-driven killings has totaled to more than 200 millions killed since the claim of this wild thing.
There are so many schizo and others [driven by realism] who had killed many based on the voices and sights of wild things who ordered them to kill.

As for God being immoral, at least according to present human ideas on the matter, Yes, of course God is immoral. The very fact that people get old and die is immoral.
Why do atheists like you always pick up on the immorality of God and then say that God doesn't exist?
Reality is cruel and terrible things happen all the time. Our goal should be to seek safety, not reason that terror out of existence, which can't be done.

Here is my favorite story of the immorality of God - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents.

Here's what Martin Luther, the great reformer, had to say on the matter. He said by both the light of reason and scripture, God seems worse than the devil. And it is only in the light of glory, after death, that will we see the rightness of it all. I have pondered that often. He believed that we are all predestined to either Heaven or Hell and there is no getting around your destiny. He did not believe in freewill.

You mistook my point.

When I refer to the immorality of God, I am speaking from the perspective to theists who believe God exists as real.
It is not me who claims God exists as real.

Point is,
if theists claimed God exists as real, then from that basis, God is immoral as evident that God had influenced the theists [believers] to kill non-believers in the millions.

In a way, reality is 'cruel' but that is a very humanized negative perspective.
Whatever [negative] happens naturally should NOT be anthropomorhized and humanized.
It is just like the Covid19, where humanity has to deal with it accordingly but one cannot blame the virus emerging naturally except the initial handling of the problem by China.

But when evil is driven by something that is illusory and believed, then humanity must take steps to resolve, prevent or eliminate it.
This is like an illusory God that delivered a holy texts and therein commands believers to kill not-believers upon vague threats to the religion, if not, they will go to hell.
It is the same a schizo who heard a voice, believing it to be real, which commanded him to kill people.
There are many people who had relied on false belief and therefrom went on to commit true killings and other evil acts.

The above consequences generally are triggered by certain realists [theistic, etc.] who believe there are such external beings independent of themselves who commanded them to do evil acts upon innocent people.

On the other hand, the anti-realists believe whatever is reality is somehow entangled with their own being. In this case, whatever evil act they commit, they are in a way responsible and there is no room for them to shift blame to any independent external third party.

[tapaticmadness]

On the other hand, the anti-realists believe whatever is reality is somehow entangled with their own being. In this case, whatever evil act they commit, they are in a way responsible and there is no room for them to shift blame to any independent external third party.

As an extreme Platonic realist I believe that Good and Evil are real things, independent of human beings. If all human beings suddenly disappeared Good and Evil would still exist. Not only that, but so would error and deception and illusion and untruth. So would everything that enters the mind of man. Man creates nothing, nothing at all. You give too much power to the mind of man.

[Skepdick]

As an extreme Platonic realist I believe that Good and Evil are real things, independent of human beings. If all human beings suddenly disappeared Good and Evil would still exist. Not only that, but so would error and deception and illusion and untruth. So would everything that enters the mind of man. Man creates nothing, nothing at all. You give too much power to the mind of man.

If I am to wear your exact hat (Platonic realism) and agree to everything you say , I can make a trivial counter-argument by taking the opposite stance on your final point.

You give too little power to the mind of man.

I have no problem with the premise "reality exists independent of the human mind", but I feel it necessary to point out that it's a trivial truth - there's more to it: All knowledge about the mind-independent reality is a social and human construction. This is the view of constructive epistemology. All that we call knowledge is man-made.

Knowledge is power (they say). If we have any knowledge of Good and Evil, error and deception, illusion and untruth, then we have power. Once we recognise our own power then we begin to question God's identity. Is God just a Platonic form of ourselves?

[tapaticmadness]

As an extreme Platonic realist I believe that Good and Evil are real things, independent of human beings. If all human beings suddenly disappeared Good and Evil would still exist. Not only that, but so would error and deception and illusion and untruth. So would everything that enters the mind of man. Man creates nothing, nothing at all. You give too much power to the mind of man.

If I am to wear your exact hat (Platonic realism) and agree to everything you say , I can make a trivial counter-argument by taking the opposite stance on your final point.

You give too little power to the mind of man.

I have no problem with the premise "reality exists independent of the human mind", but I feel it necessary to point out that it's a trivial truth - there's more to it: All knowledge about the mind-independent reality is a social and human construction. This is the view of constructive epistemology. All knowledge is man-made.

Knowledge is power (they say). If we have any knowledge of Good and Evil, illusion and untruth, then we have power.

Yes, of course you can take an opposite stance. And if you end up with a world that you would want to live in, then you have proved your case. I personally find the idea that "All knowledge is manmade" to be boring. You obviously don't. I have no objection to your stance. I, with my queer mind, love the feel of reality coming at me and possessing me. Existence pressing down on me is glorious. I wouldn't expect everyone or even a few others to feel the same way. I get what I want and that is the only proof of a philosophy there is.

[tapaticmadness]

As an extreme Platonic realist I believe that Good and Evil are real things, independent of human beings. If all human beings suddenly disappeared Good and Evil would still exist. Not only that, but so would error and deception and illusion and untruth. So would everything that enters the mind of man. Man creates nothing, nothing at all. You give too much power to the mind of man.

If I am to wear your exact hat (Platonic realism) and agree to everything you say , I can make a trivial counter-argument by taking the opposite stance on your final point.

You give too little power to the mind of man.

I have no problem with the premise "reality exists independent of the human mind", but I feel it necessary to point out that it's a trivial truth - there's more to it: All knowledge about the mind-independent reality is a social and human construction. This is the view of constructive epistemology. All that we call knowledge is man-made.

Knowledge is power (they say). If we have any knowledge of Good and Evil, error and deception, illusion and untruth, then we have power. Once we recognise our own power then we begin to question God's identity. Is God just a Platonic form of ourselves?

Platonism. Realism, And how it differs from anti-realism. It a question about universal Forms. The Forms. What is a Form?

To deal with the Forms is to deal with pure accident. They are simple and have no definition that works. Take the Forms of a City and an Airport. You vaguely know what they are. So now here you are a traveler. You arrive at your destination. The plane is crowded and people are jockeying to get their stuff and get off the plane. It’s a mess and you are tired. Where is this and where is that. Eventually you are walking out onto the gangway. You make it. Now you have to find your way through an airport you don’t know. You have to make connections and if it is not your final destination you have to find out where you wait. It’s hectic. All so you can get at a strange city where you will again have to figure it all out as you go along. You are in Unknowing. One step at a time until you figure it out in your tiredness and body aches.

In Platonism, the universal Form is separate from the particular that exemplifies it. And the generic Form is different from the specific Forms that it might take. You know City and Airport, but this city and this airport could be anything. It is pure accident what that will be. All you know for sure is you will encounter That, whatever it is. The bare particular and the bare Form are just right there and you have encountered Them. Deal with it. everything is pure accident.

It’s like sex. You find yourself at night in a strange apartment with a person you don’t know. You have to manage. And reach orgasm. A lot of repetition and move here, move there, try this, try that. Eventually you will reach the peak and come. Then after a few moments rest you make your way home in the dark.

I remember when I was young in the 1960s I often had no place of my own and every night I would have to find a place to crash. And something to eat. Somehow I managed. It wasn’t always legal, but I managed. One step at a time. Everything was pure accident. There was no knowing where or what. On the battle fields of Vietnam, it was the same. Boys trying to stay alive in the jungle. You just keep going until you arrive somewhere. They you have to figure that out and head out again. And you are tired. There is always That, the bare That.

And now I have to maneuver my way around Kathmandu, a big, dirty chaotic city. Even when I go on the buses to a place I know I never know what I am going to have to work my way around and through. I love it. everything is pure accident. And the boys are so very sexy. And the food is never something I can eat. I so long for a McDonalds and a quarter-pounder.

For a lot of my life I worked in catering. Moving things from here to there. Always in some unknown location. If you know catering you know that nothing ever goes according to plan. And something always breaks or isn’t right or you forgot something. You have to think of something and make it work. Again, everything is pure accident. And you deal with it. And of course smile. Loading and unloading the truck was usually a matter of throwing something.

Science deals in facts. The world is all that is the case, said Wittgenstein. A fact is made out of ontological things. For example if I say that that is a red sphere, then there are the things named by the words “that”, “is”, “red” and “sphere”. A realist says those things exist external to the mind and together they make the fact that that is a red sphere. A Nominalist will say that the fact is the primary existing thing and those “things” are just words (nomina) and they name abstracted concepts formed by the mind. Concepts are not real existing things, he says.

So here I am, a Realist. I can grasp the ontological things that compose the fact. I can think the bare this, the bare is, the bare red and the bare sphere (or spherical). The notion of bareness is essential. What is bareness?

Let’s say you are walking and you encounter an obstacle blocking you path. It’s a difficult path through brush, across brambled ravines, into swampy land. You are having a hard time of it. And at each turn there is a surprise. Here is another. A Thing is blocking your way. There is That. The bare That you cannot comprehend. How to deal with it? It is just That.

Often in life we encounter such a presence. Maybe an illness (coronavirus) or a debt or a job loss or being abandoned by a lover. There is That. You cannot think it out of existence. It is nauseating. It makes your head ache. There’s nothing you can say.

Now think of the universal Form of Red. Many many things exemplify that. Again it is a That Thing. Today some try to change it into quantifiable electromatic waves that can be easily handled by mathematics and understood, but such a transrormation finally doesn’t work. Red remains just the color Red. You are stuck with it. It just is. There is no understanding of it. And the same thinking goes for the universal Form Spherical. It just is. And you don’t understand why it is or what it is. You are stuck with it.


So now I am writing up my idea, but the idea is definitely not definite and well-defined. I write one sentence and then another. I’ll know when I’m done. And then I’ll go back to bed. And dream my crazy dreams.

Here on this forum, many want only to deal with the well-defined so they give me excerpts from some philosophical dictionary. They so long for something steady to hang onto. It never works. The Forms cannot be defined. We are all walking in the dark and making thing up as we go along. I bring up God, the least defined, the most knock-about head-banger thing there is. God is Pure Accident Itself. Just That. Deal with it. then people ask me to define my terms. Which is like trying to follow instructions in sex. It’s not going to work. You’ll know you’ve arrived when you get there.

That is Existentialism. It is Roquetin standing there, encountering the chestnut tree in the book Nausea. It is you becoming nauseated as you watch a shaman. Magic is without understanding. It is from the realm of pure chance. It is just That. Everything is bare.

So have I written anything understandable here? No, I just wrote what came to me as I walked in the dark through a wasteland. Pure chance was everywhere. And magic, so far from nice clean scientific fact.

Ontological Things exist and that existence is the dark core at their center. So people try to mathematicize the Thing and get rid of the darkness in the pure Light of mathematical analyticity. They try to get rid of existence, maybe a la Buddhism. And make it a mere concept, nothing at all. But I don’t. I love existence and dark Ontological Things that are just There. Dasein.

[Veritas Aequitas]

On the other hand, the anti-realists believe whatever is reality is somehow entangled with their own being. In this case, whatever evil act they commit, they are in a way responsible and there is no room for them to shift blame to any independent external third party.

As an extreme Platonic realist I believe that Good and Evil are real things, independent of human beings. If all human beings suddenly disappeared Good and Evil would still exist. Not only that, but so would error and deception and illusion and untruth. So would everything that enters the mind of man. Man creates nothing, nothing at all.

Are you aware of the very common issue of;
The Problem of Universals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
The weightage favor those who are against universals as independent than those who are for the same.

Universals is "sameness" within a group of particulars.
"Sameness" emerges from the Pattern Recognition Faculty of humans in the brain/mind which is a feature of evolution to facilitate survival more efficiently where appropriate.
Since sameness, pattern recognition, universals emerge from the human mind, they cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

Universals are grounded upon particulars;
But particulars themselves intrinsically entangle with the human mind collectively.
From this universals cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions collectively.

Linguistically, universals may be acceptable as independent [conceptualization] but universals cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions collectively.

Man creates nothing, nothing at all.

What about the chair you are sitting on, the computer, and all man-made things?
Whilst unintentional, loads of natural events are created [contributed] by man, e.g. pollution, global warming, diseases, etc.

You give too much power to the mind of man.

Nope I had not done so.
That is your invention.

Human beings are minuscule and insignificant to reality but humans collectively are part and parcel of that reality in which they are entangled and intertwined with.
Therefore humans collectively cannot be absolutely independent of reality [universals, universe, and the likes.
How can you dispute this point?

[tapaticmadness]

Are you aware of the very common issue of;
The Problem of Universals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
The weightage favor those who are against universals as independent than those who are for the same.

Your asking me if I am aware of "The Problem of Universals" is like me asking you if you are aware of neurophysiology and brain studies. Of course I am and of course you are. I have studied the topic for decades. As for that weightage, I assume you are referring to public opinion, including the opinions of those in brain studies. Yes, of course the Realism I propose does not jive with the great weight of public opinion. It is not popular philosophy. Neither does it align with what is commonly thought by researchers. So what? I am not bent under that weight. It's the age old question of realism vs. materialism. Here's Plato -

Socrates: What we shall see is something like a Battle of Gods and Giants going on between them over their quarrel about reality.

Theaetetus: How so?

Socrates: One party is trying to drag everything down to earth out of heaven and the unseen, literally grasping rocks and trees in their hands; for they lay hold upon every stock and stone and strenuously affirm that real existence belongs only to that which can be handled and offers resistance to the touch. They define reality as the same thing as the body, and as soon as one of the opposite party asserts that anything without a body is real, they are utterly contemptuous and will not listen to another word.

Theaetetus: The people you describe are certainly a formidable crew, I have met quite a number of them before now.

Socrates: Yes, and accordingly their adversaries are very wary in defending their position somewhere in the heights of the unseen, maintaining with all their force that true reality consists in certain intelligible and bodiless Forms. In the clash of argument they shatter and pulverize those bodies which their opponents wield, and what those others allege to be true reality they call, not real being, but a sort of moving process of becoming. On this issue an interminable battle is always going on between the two camps.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you aware of the very common issue of;
The Problem of Universals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
The weightage favor those who are against universals as independent than those who are for the same.

Your asking me if I am aware of "The Problem of Universals" is like me asking you if you are aware of neurophysiology and brain studies. Of course I am and of course you are. I have studied the topic for decades. As for that weightage, I assume you are referring to public opinion, including the opinions of those in brain studies. Yes, of course the Realism I propose does not jive with the great weight of public opinion. It is not popular philosophy. Neither does it align with what is commonly thought by researchers. So what? I am not bent under that weight. It's the age old question of realism vs. materialism. Here's Plato -

Socrates: What we shall see is something like a Battle of Gods and Giants going on between them over their quarrel about reality.

Theaetetus: How so?

Socrates: One party is trying to drag everything down to earth out of heaven and the unseen, literally grasping rocks and trees in their hands; for they lay hold upon every stock and stone and strenuously affirm that real existence belongs only to that which can be handled and offers resistance to the touch. They define reality as the same thing as the body, and as soon as one of the opposite party asserts that anything without a body is real, they are utterly contemptuous and will not listen to another word.

Theaetetus: The people you describe are certainly a formidable crew, I have met quite a number of them before now.

Socrates: Yes, and accordingly their adversaries are very wary in defending their position somewhere in the heights of the unseen, maintaining with all their force that true reality consists in certain intelligible and bodiless Forms. In the clash of argument they shatter and pulverize those bodies which their opponents wield, and what those others allege to be true reality they call, not real being, but a sort of moving process of becoming. On this issue an interminable battle is always going on between the two camps.

It is not popular philosophy. Neither does it align with what is commonly thought by researchers.
So what?
I am not bent under that weight. It's the age old question of realism vs. materialism

.
It is not realism vs materialism but realism vs. anti-realism.

If I were to claim I can fly in the air by own effort without aid, and you insist I am crazy, then I replied "so what?"
that would be the end of any philosophical discussion as expected within such a philosophy forum.

It is the same with your 'so what' in this discussion.
There is nothing to go on unless you get back to the philosophical & rational argument boat.

[tapaticmadness]

It is the same with your 'so what' in this discussion.
There is nothing to go on unless you get back to the philosophical & rational argument boat.

You were the one who mentioned the "weightiness" of your argument. I was only trying to figure out what you meant.