Realists Approximation of Reality-in-Itself

[Veritas Aequitas]

• Thesis: When we refute what-is-fact [PH's version][noumenon] {an illusion}, then we can work on Objective Moral Facts are Enacted moral FSK-Facts which are realistic and can expedite the progress of morality within humanity in the future [not now].

According to Philosophical Realism;

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now [Phenomena] is only an approximation of reality [noumenon] but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The implication is we humans are getting closer and closer to know the accuracy and fullness of what is 100% of true-reality is as it is [the noumenon].

This is the basis of Peter Holmes & gang's 'What is fact'.
To PH, what are facts are independent entities out [noumenon] there awaiting discovery by human via science and other means.
And we will be improving on our accuracy and fullness of the understanding of such reality-as-it-is, i.e. reality-in-itself [noumenon].

Realism [Philosophical] believes that reality and the facts therein are independent of the human conditions.
This is a problem, as 'independent' [separated] imply there is no way humans will ever know and understand what is 100% of true-reality is as it is [noumenon] that they are separated from.

Re Meno's Paradox, if we cannot know the 100% truth of what we are supposed to know [reality as it is or reality-in-itself] [noumenon],
how can we be certain or confident that 'what we know now' [phenomena] is even a copy of [reality as it is or reality-in-itself]?
This is the inherent problem of the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which PH denies, but is indirectly engaged in.

If that is the case, then that supposed reality as it is or reality-in-itself [PH's what is fact] is a non-starter.
There is no significant loss to humans if we ignore or forget about reality as it is or reality-in-itself [PH's what is fact] {the noumenon} that we are approximating towards.

Instead if we were to regard as what is really real as 'what we know' [phenomena] based on available evidence, that would be more useful.
This is related to Kant's Copernican Revolution.
This is evident with scientific facts from the scientific-FSK which is very useful to the progress of humanity.

Scientific facts conditioned upon the scientific FSK are not merely perceptions in the mind [human conditions], but as I had claimed here,
Objective Moral Facts are Enacted FSK-Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39630
they are Enacted FSK-Facts.
The term 'enacted' is significant in this case.
The knowing and description of these enacted facts are secondary.

My point is the claims of what-is-fact [PH's version] is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical. It will have no impact if we eject them from our epistemology and ontology.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

When we refute what-is-fact [PH's version][noumenon], then we can work on Objective Moral Facts are Enacted moral FSK-Facts which are realistic and can expedite the progress of morality within humanity in the future [not now].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the sort of Venn Diagram,

Below is an image that show the external reality is independent of the subject.


The classical Cartesian model of the mind under which body, world, perception and action are understood as independent.

This is where the world is comprised of PH's independent facts [noumenon] awaiting discovery by humans from a distance with a reality GAP.

The point is this reality GAP between what is supposedly-real out there in the environment and known & described is eternally separated.
In this case, it make no difference if we ignore that is supposedly-real [noumenon].

Rather it is more useful if we are to focus on the reality we are entangled with as below;

Here is a image of how the human conditions are entangled within the 'external' reality, i.e. there in no absolutely independent external reality.
At the ultimate [not common nor conventional sense] level, the subject and object are intertwine as one thing.
Whatever is a fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK which is intertwined [never independent of] within the supposedly external world of objects and subjects.


The embodied cognitive model of the mind under which body, world, perception and action are dynamically related with each other.

[Sculptor]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

[Harbal]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

I think he needs to get Peter Holmes out of his head. I bet he even dreams about him.

[Iwannaplato]

Note the sort of Venn Diagram,

The embodied cognitive model of the mind under which body, world, perception and action are dynamically related with each other.

Sure, however........

The embodied cognition theorist might respond that the classicist/cognitivist has misinterpreted what it means to claim that cognition is a constructive process. By constructive, Embodied theorists do not mean to imply that there is no objective, external reality and that everything is subjective. Instead, the point is that a type of mutual specification occurs between the organism and its environment, so that the way the world looks and the way in which the organism can interact in the world is primarily determined by the way the organism is embodied. So, an observer-independent world can be granted, but embodied cognition theorists claim that an organism will understand this world in terms of the unique sensorimotor relations it experiences

IOW it's not making the kind of claim in VA's Moon thread.

[Skepdick]

blah blah blah

“Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations.” — John von Neumann

[Skepdick]

The embodied cognition theorist might respond that the classicist/cognitivist has misinterpreted what it means to claim that cognition is a constructive process. By constructive, Embodied theorists do not mean to imply that there is no objective, external reality and that everything is subjective. Instead, the point is that a type of mutual specification occurs between the organism and its environment, so that the way the world looks and the way in which the organism can interact in the world is primarily determined by the way the organism is embodied. So, an observer-independent world can be granted, but embodied cognition theorists claim that an organism will understand this world in terms of the unique sensorimotor relations it experiences

IOW it's not making the kind of claim in VA's Moon thread.

Embodied cognitionists aren't wrong. In fact their claim is pretty obvious - we perceive some wavelengths of the spectrum (visible light) with our eyes, but others with our skin (heat). But that's neither here nor there.

The claims of embodied cognition theorists are not in any way incompatible with the more general epistemic claim of constructivists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... f_science)

According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.

You can polish the above with the embeded cognitionist claims: all socially constructed knowledge is shaped by our physiology (while it still remains true that what we know about our physiology is socially constructed using science, theories etc.)

And so it trivially follows from there onwards that objectivity is an inter-subjective social construct; and the consensus theory of truth emerges.

In fact, all other truth-theories are simply impossible without solving the symbol-grounding problem via social consensus.

e.g the correspondence theory doesn't work without us first agreeing on whether this color corresponds to red; or this color corresponds to red. Both are perfectly coherent in isolation.

[Iwannaplato]

Embodied cognitionists aren't wrong.

I agree. And I consider myself one, quite a bit of the time. I even go a bit further, on occasion, into being an extended mindist. Somewhat via Alva Nöe.
Action in Perception (Bradford, 2006)
Out of our Heads: Why You are Not Your Brain and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciouness (Hill and Weng, 2010)
Varieties of Presence (Harvard UnivPr, 2012)

And then I do think there is some knowing at a distance type stuff. Something unmediated. I have no model for this. Nor can I demonstrate it. It just seems to fit a lot of experiences of mine. And it seems one can improve it.

The claims of embodied cognition theorists are not in any way incompatible with the more general epistemic claim of constructivists.

I think it's fair to batch them as a kind of contructivist.

There used to be, in some cultures the idea that the eyes sent something out, sort of like sonar. Then it became cliche to see vision as kind of passive. Photons hit the retina. Now it's a mountain again, with us tapping our seeing on the environment much as a blind person taps their cane to get repeated bits of information, continuously building an 'image'. So, there is an outward movement, a constant one. And then all the filling in the gaps (more purely with the blind spot) and then in the use of memory and future guessing to contruct the incoming images.

According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.

Sure.

You can polish the above with the embeded cognitionist claims: all socially constructed knowledge is shaped by our physiology (while it still remains true that what we know about our physiology is socially constructed using science, theories etc.)

and our bodies.

And so it trivially follows from there onwards that objectivity is an inter-subjective social construct; and the consensus theory of truth emerges.

Sure.

I was more focused on his ontology of seeing things into existence. His Moon thread - But yeah, I go along with all this.

Of course, as you say, it's built up on a stuff out there models of perception. IOW classic sort of Cartesian thinking scientists study matter or 'matter' come up with models of things, including sense organs and how they function and follow his first diagram. Then using these ideas about 'things out there' some other guys go on to make the embodied cognitivist models.

I think both are extremely useful. You have to walk a tightrope. If one calls out classical cognitive theories of perception, you may end up with the fruit of a poison tree if one's new models are built on it. I think the models can be collegial.

[Sculptor]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

I think he needs to get Peter Holmes out of his head. I bet he even dreams about him.

THey should get a room.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

I think he needs to get Peter Holmes out of his head. I bet he even dreams about him.

Hey!
I mentioned it was PH's thread, not only PH but PH & gang,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
and one of Sculptor's insult,
that got me to having >1500 files [books, articles, notes] in Ethics and Morality Folder with 91 subfolders.

With the above, I have at least covered the full range of Morality & Ethics [understood the general ideas therein] there is within the human database of that topic. You tell me what are the rare bits I am likely to miss on Ethics and Morality within humanity and I will go into it.

This is a philosophy forum which is all about exploring and advancing one's knowledge base.
So what is wrong if I leverage on PH & gang opposing my views [with their kindergarten knowledge base] to gain more knowledge.
My wish is PH & gang do not agree with me, else there would be less leverage and motivation for me to research more about Ethics and Morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

I already know sufficiently [since there no absoluteness and certainty] what reality is all about.

It is the 'kindergarten' thinkers like you I am trying to educate with the above explanations.

Why don't you summarize my points [see if you even understand - not necessary agree with it] and provide a counter to it.

[Sculptor]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

I already know sufficiently [since there no absoluteness and certainty] what reality is all about.

It is the 'kindergarten' thinkers like you I am trying to educate with the above explanations.

Why don't you summarize my points [see if you even understand - not necessary agree with it] and provide a counter to it.

You do not have a point

[FlashDangerpants]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

I think he needs to get Peter Holmes out of his head. I bet he even dreams about him.

This forum would have developed in a much nicer direction if only Pete were not such an aloof father figure to poor little Vestibule Architect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Still trying to work it all out, eh?

I already know sufficiently [since there no absoluteness and certainty] what reality is all about.

It is the 'kindergarten' thinkers like you I am trying to educate with the above explanations.

Why don't you summarize my points [see if you even understand - not necessary agree with it] and provide a counter to it.

You do not have a point

You are a coward and running away with excuses.

When I discussed with those who are intellectually matured, they will always try to understand [not necessary agree] my points before they counter it.
Otherwise it is a waste to everyone's time if we are talking pass each other.

[Sculptor]

I already know sufficiently [since there no absoluteness and certainty] what reality is all about.

It is the 'kindergarten' thinkers like you I am trying to educate with the above explanations.

Why don't you summarize my points [see if you even understand - not necessary agree with it] and provide a counter to it.

You do not have a point

You are a coward and running away with excuses.

When I discussed with those who are intellectually matured, they will always try to understand [not necessary agree] my points before they counter it.
Otherwise it is a waste to everyone's time if we are talking pass each other.

You have never faced a question all the time you have been posting here.