Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism deny the existence of moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective.

• Philosophical Realism ....... is the view that a certain kind of thing (like numbers, morality, or the physical world) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

There is an inherent evolutionary default of external-ness or mind-independence critical for basic survival.
But Philosophical Realists cling to this default as a dogmatic ideology as the most real which is absurd and illusory.
Philosophical realists are insisting in taking an ASSUMPTION as really real in reality.

Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  
  4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

Therefore, Philosophical Realism which claim reality [things in reality] is mind-independent is absurd.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

First, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; later, mountains aren't mountains and waters aren't waters; finally, mountains are once again mountains and waters are once again waters.

Do you know why, after the second stage where we realize that the mountain isn't as it seems in many ways, in the final stage Zen returns to a pseudo-realism (with real external world)?

[Veritas Aequitas]

OP: But Philosophical Realists cling to this default [of mind-independence] as a dogmatic ideology as the most real which is absurd and illusory.

The problem is Philosophical Realists are so dogmatic with the '1st stage' and are too ignorant and incapable to step up to the 2nd stage.
The 3rd stage is always grounded on the 2nd stage of enlightenment [not-mind-independent].

See;
Ten Bulls for greater details;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls
Ten Bulls or Ten Ox Herding Pictures is a series of short poems and accompanying drawings used in the Zen tradition to describe the stages of a practitioner's progress toward enlightenment, and their return to society to enact wisdom and compassion.

Read the 9 Bulls, and finally;


10. Return to Society
Barefooted and naked of breast,
I mingle with the people of the world.
My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
and I am ever blissful.
I use no magic to extend my life;
Now, before me, the dead trees
become alive.

or
finally, mountains are once again mountains and waters are once again waters.

or
“Chop Wood, Carry Water"

[Atla]

The problem is Philosophical Realists are so dogmatic with the '1st stage' and are too ignorant and incapable to step up to the 2nd stage.
The 3rd stage is always grounded on the 2nd stage of enlightenment [not-mind-independent].

Neither Buddhism nor Kant claimed that there can't be things that are mind-independent.

Looks like you really can't tell apart the problem of essence (no-thingness, emptiness, sunyata) and the problem of posited noumenon (real, negative, dual-object, posited noumenon). These are two different problems, two different issues, two different dimensions.

Reified essence is always an illusion, but the non-reified external world is probably not an illusion, just unknowable.

I agree that 1st stage philosophical realism is retarded, but no wonder you aren't making any progress, as long you don't even know what you're arguing against. By the way, I think dogmatic philosophical realism already went out of fashion some time ago, something you didn't notice, so you're banging on open doors. There are only a few dogmatic philosophical realists running around on philosophy forums anymore.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have posted this quote a '1000' times but somehow it never get sunk it by many.

• For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we [humans] do not possess,
  and in the absence of this [intelligible Intuition] [the intelligible object] would be for us nothing at all;
  and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
  CPR B336

For Kant what is real are verifiable Appearances and they are not mind-independent Objects-in-themselves.

To cognize mind-independent objects, i.e. intelligible objects [noumenon aka thing-in-itself] logically, an intelligible intuition is needed.

Humans do not have intelligible intuitions, therefore the idea of the intelligible cannot be in any real as mind-independent.

• Even if we were willing to assume a kind of Intuition [intelligible] other than this our Sensible kind, the Functions of our Thought would still be without meaning in respect to it.
  A286

Even if we assume there is a kind of intelligible intuition, it would be still be meaningless.

Overall, to Kant there no real mind-independent entity that is out there or deem to be unknowable.
The noumenon is limited to being a thought object and used as a thought object and NEVER to be claimed as a real mind-independent object.

Re Buddhism,
One of the central tenet of Buddhism

Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद, Pāli: paṭiccasamuppāda), commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a key doctrine in Buddhism shared by all schools of Buddhism.[1][note 1] It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things.
The doctrine includes depictions of the arising of suffering (anuloma-paṭiccasamuppāda, "with the grain", forward conditionality) and depictions of how the chain can be reversed (paṭiloma-paṭiccasamuppāda, "against the grain", reverse conditionality). WIKI

1. To the Buddhists all things are conditioned, i.e. they cannot be mind-independent.
2. To be enlightened is to be aware of this fundamental fact and do not be attached to it as if things are mind-independent [Sunyata].
3. Once enlightened they can view things as mind-independent but they are aware of 2 at the same time.

From my experience almost all posters here [with exceptions] believed in a mind-independent reality as in philosophical realism and most of them are dogmatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Show evidence dogmatic philosophical realism is out of fashion?
The very angry attitude and violent intellectual attacks against those with anti-philosophical realism [like me] is evident dogmatic philosophical realism is still very active at present.

[Atla]

I have posted this quote a '1000' times but somehow it never get sunk it by many.

• For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we [humans] do not possess,
  and in the absence of this [intelligible Intuition] [the intelligible object] would be for us nothing at all;
  and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
  CPR B336

For Kant what is real are verifiable Appearances and they are not mind-independent Objects-in-themselves.

To cognize mind-independent objects, i.e. intelligible objects [noumenon aka thing-in-itself] logically, an intelligible intuition is needed.

Humans do not have intelligible intuitions, therefore the idea of the intelligible cannot be in any real as mind-independent.

• Even if we were willing to assume a kind of Intuition [intelligible] other than this our Sensible kind, the Functions of our Thought would still be without meaning in respect to it.
  A286

Even if we assume there is a kind of intelligible intuition, it would be still be meaningless.

Overall, to Kant there no real mind-independent entity that is out there or deem to be unknowable.
The noumenon is limited to being a thought object and used as a thought object and NEVER to be claimed as a real mind-independent object.

And we told you a 1000 times that you didn't understand the difference between reference and referent. Kant doesn't say that there can't be a reality out there, he only says that we can only know the mind-dependent reference to that reality.

Re Buddhism,
One of the central tenet of Buddhism

Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद, Pāli: paṭiccasamuppāda), commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a key doctrine in Buddhism shared by all schools of Buddhism.[1][note 1] It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things.
The doctrine includes depictions of the arising of suffering (anuloma-paṭiccasamuppāda, "with the grain", forward conditionality) and depictions of how the chain can be reversed (paṭiloma-paṭiccasamuppāda, "against the grain", reverse conditionality). WIKI

1. To the Buddhists all things are conditioned, i.e. they cannot be mind-independent.
2. To be enlightened is to be aware of this fundamental fact and do not be attached to it as if things are mind-independent [Sunyata].
3. Once enlightened they can view things as mind-independent but they are aware of 2 at the same time.

From my experience almost all posters here [with exceptions] believed in a mind-independent reality as in philosophical realism and most of them are dogmatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Conditions can be both be mind-dependent and mind-independent, so conditioned doesn't mean mind-dependent. Looks like you made that up too.

Show evidence dogmatic philosophical realism is out of fashion?
The very angry attitude and violent intellectual attacks against those with anti-philosophical realism [like me] is evident dogmatic philosophical realism is still very active at present.

Realism on the existence of an external world didn't go out of fashion, and you get the angry attacks because you deny it, which is batshit insane.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no reason for angry attacks for offering a counter argument.
It is so evident, intellectual violence creeping up from a dogmatic philosophical realist who cannot sustain rational arguments. My reason for putting such posters in 'ignore'.

[Atla]

It is so evident, intellectual violence creeping up from a dogmatic philosophical realist who cannot sustain rational arguments. My reason for putting posters in 'ignore'.

Intellectual violence: wanting the entire world to adopt a mind-dependent, ultimately solipsistic view. Humanity is already insane enough, despite the reality check of the (philosophically justified) real external world. Take even that away, and the whole world will probably go completely insane. Some rational arguments huh

[Atla]

What's it called in English, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?

Say, one is a fanatic follower of one of the more delusional subversions of Advaita. Where all the essences are "real", but most importantly, the entire world is God/Brahman, a huge literal being that's doing stuff.

So we then want to get rid of God, and we throw out the entire natural world which is God. We also want to get rid of essences, so we throw out all things, all objects. Now we are fanatical denialists.



We went from one extreme to the other. The solution was somewhere in the middle. Some kind of middle path. Ultimately, in my opinion, the Advaitan positive approach is better for human life, than the Buddhist negative approach, but when handled properly, they meet in the middle.

Yes the natural world is real and it's all consciousness, but the Brahman is just a name for it. It's no actual God, no actual being, it isn't doing stuff, the world is not a big mind, it's simply the world.

Yes all reified essences are illusory, but that doesn't mean that nothing exists. A table is still a table, it just has no table essence in itself.



And the above isn't even about the Kantian phenomena vs noumena issue, at least not when it comes to the external world. That's another dimension which probably leads us to representationalism, dual-object noumena.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA offers this gem.

'Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].'

Can anyone spot the flaw?

Yep. I quoted it whole. IWP has pointed out the equivocation on 'dependence' - but that's another lost cause.

'Human beings are part of reality; therefore, reality cannot be independent from human beings.'

Where to begin? Tinkering's no good. What's needed is complete disassembly, a steam clean, and reconstruction from the start. Which ain't gonna happen.
[/quote]
Problem is your philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion, thus unable to see the rationale below.
Since your brain is so limited, let me give you an analogy;

'1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
A real car as a whole is all-there-is of what is a car as specified.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
Any part of the real car cannot be independent of the whole car as it is.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
A car engine is intricately part and parcel of the whole car.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].'
Thus, the car engine cannot be independent of the whole car or vice-versa.
If the engine is separated from the whole car, then it is no more a car per se.

The above analogy is applicable to the whole of empirical reality that is verifiable and justifiable within the human-based scientific-FSK.

Show me exactly where the above is wrong from the human-based scientific FSK?

[Iwannaplato]

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
Any part of the real car cannot be independent of the whole car as it is.

I don't think this is a good analogy. If I take off one of the wheels of my car and place the pieces of the wheel in the appropriate acids, the rest of the car is still there in my driveway. Especially if I am looking at it.

[Skepdick]

I don't think this is a good analogy. If I take off one of the wheels of my car and place the pieces of the wheel in the appropriate acids, the rest of the car is still there in my driveway. Especially if I am looking at it.

That's a terrible anti-analogy which fails under Sorites' paradox.

Deconstruct the observer like yo are deconstructing the car.

How many parts of the car can you remove before it stops being "the rest of the car"?
How many parts can you remove from the observer before it stops being "the rest of the observer"?

In the most precise sense possible with words: take away any part (however small, infinitesimal or insignificant) from the "whole universe" and it's no longer whole.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's version of the non sequitur fallacy is this:

Factual premise: Humans are neurologically programmed to think that, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.

I think there's another problem.
Let's take the 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' neurology.
At this current time, 2023, humans have a neurological set-up. Let's grant there is an 'oughtness not to kill humans'. He has been critical of current humans, seeing most as primitive, except for a few. Clearly since neurology leads to behavior, there are others oughtnesses that conflict with 'oughtness not to kill humans' neurological patterns.

So, we have current brains with whatever ratio or prioritizations of oughtnesses not to kill and oughtnesses to kill or be violent.

He purports to draw his morality out of human neurology. If he is drawing morality out of human brains, well, there they are, as they are now, with a mix. If neurology shows objective moral facts, then the objective moral facts are we generally do not kill other humans, but sometimes some of us do.

Thus the objective moral fact is that we should have the current mix.

If that is the source of objectivity, well, they we have to accept the lay of the land.

But VA does not accept the lay of the land.

He wants us to enhance one oughtness. He thinks we should. The oughtness not to kill should have more dominance in neurology.

SO...he has some other source of objectivity that allow him to say, no those neurological patterns are bad and this one, that I like is good.

So, even granting

Factual premise: Humans are neurologically programmed to think that, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.

Let's say this is all correct. This does not allow him to morally judge most current humans, which he does, and also implicitly current human neurological patterns.

He either has no grounds to do this OR he has some objective grounds which he still does not reveal.

I think he just thinks it's obvious, since he has never justified on what grounds he uses neuronal patterns as the source of objective morality, but does not, at the same, time accept current neurological pattern ratios and priorities in current brains.

All agreed - and that's an interesting angle. Thanks.

You ignorantly agreed to the above without a proper understanding of the real human-based FSK facts???

First anything to do with morality related to right or wrong strictly is a strawman.

Note this neuroscience-FSK-Fact,
The brain has appx. 100 billion neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapse connectors with the potential and actual permutations of neural combinations.
There are load of neural functions [1K, 10K or 100K?] represented by their specific neural combinations.

Although all the functions are interconnected within the whole brain and body, they are dealt separately within specific human-based scientific FSKs, e.g. primal instincts for survival, food, fight, flight, sex, intellect, social, senses, etc. and morality.

As generally practiced in modern times, each neuro-function is primarily studied as a specialist subject independent of other neuro-functions and other functions are only brought where is is critical.
On a secondary basis, various primary functions may be grouped together as a subject, example neuro-this or that.

I had argued, morality-proper is a primary function of the brain independent of all other functions, e.g. food, sex, fight, intellect, etc.
At a secondary level, morality may be combined with other neural-functions.

The oughtness-not-to-kill-humans belong primarily to morality-proper and its specific physical neural referent in the brain. The moral function is innate but recent emergence within humans since 2 million [higher primates] to 200k [homo-sapiens] ago.

That humans killed other humans is not primarily a moral function, but related to the 'fight' or kill or be killed function which is a primal instinct. This innate function is inherited as necessary since billions of years ago.

The to-kill function [>3 billion years old] is still critical for human survival so they can kill animals for food, but to avoid some lack-of-control evil people from driven by the kill function to kill humans, the moral function ought-not-to-kill-humans [200K years old].

In this sense, we cannot conflate [combine] the to-kill instinct with the ought-not-to-kill-humans of morality-proper.
While they are both human-based neural facts, they are distinct neural functions.
The 'to kill' instinct abused to kill humans is a separate neural activity; it is a primary function as primal instincts and the subject of neural evil_ness; it is not a primary function of morality proper per se.

The main function of morality-proper is to modulate the 'to kill' instinct so that it is not directed at humans.
At present, the morality-proper neural modulator [the objective moral fact -physical sets of neurons] in the majority of humans are weak and under-developed; this is reason why so many humans had been killed by humans since the early on to the present.

How can we make moral improvements and progress if we deny [like PH & gang] the existence of morality-proper neural modulator [the objective moral fact -physical sets of neurons] in the human brain.

Philosophical Realism is A Hindrance & Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think this is a good analogy. If I take off one of the wheels of my car and place the pieces of the wheel in the appropriate acids, the rest of the car is still there in my driveway. Especially if I am looking at it.

That's a terrible anti-analogy which fails under Sorites' paradox.

Deconstruct the observer like yo are deconstructing the car.

How many parts of the car can you remove before it stops being "the rest of the car"?
How many parts can you remove from the observer before it stops being "the rest of the observer"?

In the most precise sense possible with words: take away any part (however small, infinitesimal or insignificant) from the "whole universe" and it's no longer whole.

Agree.

For someone to insist taking away one wheel from a car, is still considered a car is so desperate & crude.

In this context, What is a Car:
-a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people.
Google-Dictionary