Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Skepdick]

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

In the above, it stated there is no objectivity if the views are from "a" i.e. ONE sentient SUBJECT.
Therefore it implies there is objectivity only if the views are agreed by two or more sentient beings.

"a" here means "any", not "one", VA.

What the hell is a "view from any non-sentient subject"?!?

[Iwannaplato]

To label bacteria of 3 billion years ago as proto-realists is very unintelligent.

Which is what I said.

If these bacteria are proto-realists, that would imply they believe in the ideology of philosophical realism then. This is absurd thinking.

It was strongly implied by your post.

Humans are the only living things that believe and adopt various ideologies such as philosophical realism, communism, scientism and various 'ism_s' about 5000 years ago.

The point is all living things down to LUCA [3.5 to 2.5 billion years] is embedded with a sense of external_ness

You have no way of knowing this. That is a quite advanced cognitive concept - externalness. They have reflexes and behaviors. The amoeba does not need a concept of 'externalness' to move toward a bacteria and eat it.

in their nervous system to facilitate basic survival.

Since, according to your antirealism, there is no external reality, why would an organism need an idea of externalism to survive?

Every living organism [including humans] at present is embedded with this sense of externalness represented by the same neural algorithm from the beginning.

Mindreading aimed at other creatures.

While this basic 'skeletal'* form of the sense of external-ness is retained in all living organisms, it is topped-up with improvements over the 3.5 to 2.5 billions years of evolution.

• *Note the two meanings of skeletal - [2.] applicable to this discussion.
  1. relating to or functioning as a skeleton.
  2. existing only in outline or as a framework of something.

Well, you used 'skelatal' in 'skeletal neuronal' which even with this use of the word does not work with bacteria which lack neurons. And then 'skeletal' if that's what you meant is not so different from 'proto'.

In the last 3000 years with the emergence of 'philosophy,' philosophical realists had adopted this primal sense of externalness as an IDEOLOGY as Philosophical Realism sunk in with dogmatism.

It is this ideology of Philosophical Realism grounded and fixated on that primal sense of external-ness that is primal, primitive, proto and barbaric.

Barbaric? Why not simply incorrect? Do you find realists as a rule are barbaric and primitive?

On the other hand, anti-philosophical_realists [e.g. Kantian, Buddhism] whilst they have that primal sense of external-ness, they do not ground and fix that as an ideology [-ism].

Are the realists you are talking about external to you?

And his mind, right now, is it dependant on your mind or not? Is his mind, right now, external to your mind, or not? And if it isn't external to your mind, what is it? And if it is dependent on your mind, how so?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical-realists believe and claim [IDEOLOGICALLY], reality and things therein are absolutely mind independent to the extent the moon existed during dinosaurs day and will exists after humans are extinct. Note 'ideologically'.

1. ANTI-philosophical_Realists do not deny the reality of the external world within the common and empirical sense. Otherwise it would be absurd to believe the oncoming train in the external world is denied.

2. However, for ANTI-philosophical_Realists, the sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus cannot be mind-independent.

3. As such, ultimately, reality cannot be Independent of the human conditions as claimed by p-realists.

[Atla]

Philosophical-realists believe and claim [IDEOLOGICALLY], reality and things therein are absolutely mind independent to the extent the moon existed during dinosaurs day and will exists after humans are extinct. Note 'ideologically'.

1. ANTI-philosophical_Realists do not deny the reality of the external world within the common and empirical sense. Otherwise it would be absurd to believe the oncoming train in the external world is denied.

2. However, for ANTI-philosophical_Realists, the sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus cannot be mind-independent.

3. As such, ultimately, reality cannot be Independent of the human conditions as claimed by p-realists.

Conflating different meanings of "independence", "reality", "realism", didn't work the first 663 times, I wonder what makes you dead certain that it will work perfectly the 664th time?

The fool who persists in his folly will become wise. With at least one known exception to the rule.

[Iwannaplato]

Philosophical-realists believe and claim [IDEOLOGICALLY], reality and things therein are absolutely mind independent to the extent the moon existed during dinosaurs day and will exists after humans are extinct. Note 'ideologically'.

1. ANTI-philosophical_Realists do not deny the reality of the external world within the common and empirical sense. Otherwise it would be absurd to believe the oncoming train in the external world is denied.

2. However, for ANTI-philosophical_Realists, the sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus cannot be mind-independent.

3. As such, ultimately, reality cannot be Independent of the human conditions as claimed by p-realists.

Are the p-realists external to you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. ANTI-philosophical_Realists do not deny the reality of the external world within the common and empirical sense. Otherwise it would be absurd to believe the oncoming train in the external world is denied.
Within the common sense and conventional FSR-FSK, ANTI-philosophical_Realists believe p-realists are physical living human beings which are external to them, i.e. separate entities from them.
ANTI-philosophical_Realists [unlike the p-realists] do not cling to the above view as an IDEOLOGY with a dogmatic grip.

2. However, for ANTI-philosophical_Realists, the sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus cannot be mind-independent.
Thus while p-realists are external to them, that sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [as claimed by p-realists].


3. As such, ultimately, reality [external or internal] cannot be Independent of the human conditions as claimed by p-realists.
note the TOP-DOWN, Kant's Copernican Revolution, Buddha's sole empirical - no speculation, Protagoras' 'man is the measure of all things' approaches.

[Iwannaplato]

1. ANTI-philosophical_Realists do not deny the reality of the external world within the common and empirical sense. Otherwise it would be absurd to believe the oncoming train in the external world is denied.
Within the common sense and conventional FSR-FSK, ANTI-philosophical_Realists believe p-realists are physical living human beings which are external to them, i.e. separate entities from them.
ANTI-philosophical_Realists [unlike the p-realists] do not cling to the above view as an IDEOLOGY with a dogmatic grip.

You're answering with psychology. 'We believe it, but not really. Not as much as they do. Not in the way they do.' What is really going on? IOW you believe they are external to you when thinking in common sense ways. But you think something else is really the case. That qm has shown that really this is not the case. So, if really, they are not external to you, what are they?

2. However, for ANTI-philosophical_Realists, the sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus cannot be mind-independent.
Thus while p-realists are external to them, that sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [as claimed by p-realists].

That's not really answering the question. I wasn't asking about mind-independence. Are other people external to you?

3. As such, ultimately, reality [external or internal] cannot be Independent of the human conditions as claimed by p-realists.
note the TOP-DOWN, Kant's Copernican Revolution, Buddha's sole empirical - no speculation, Protagoras' 'man is the measure of all things' approaches.

You shifted the goal posts. You shifted from talking about life forms and humans needing this false idea about externalness to talking about mind independence.

Are other people external to you? And if not what are they? Internal?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Shifting??
It is the p-realists who in the first place shifted from a real NATURAL sense of external_ness to a belief of mind-independence as a dogmatic ideology.

• Philosophical Realism ... is the view that a certain kind of thing 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

I have argued the p-realists' belief of a mind-independent reality and things reified as real is an illusion and the belief is absurd.

What is really-real must be conditioned and relative to a human-based specific FSK; the scientific-FSK is the Standard. There is no other way to establish what is really-real.

What is really-real need to be considered within the following perspectives;

1. Within the common sense and conventional FSR-FSK, ANTI-philosophical_Realists believe p-realists are physical living human beings which are external to them, i.e. separate entities from them.
My use of 'believe' used above can be misleading.
Rather, within the common and conventional sense, to the anti-philosophical_realists, p-realists emerge and are realized empirically as external to themselves.
If I am face to face with say, Joe Biden, he exists external to my physical self.
Surely I am not that stupid to insist Joe Biden exists internally in my brain or mind.

In addition to 1 above [upon deeper reflective thinking which the p-realists are not capable of], I will further qualify;

2. However, for ANTI-philosophical_Realists, that NATURAL sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent [as claimed by p-realist].
Thus while p-realists are external to them, that sense of external-ness is subsumed within the human conditions, thus CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [as claimed by p-realists].

It is the p-realists who in the first place shifted from a real natural sense of external_ness to a belief of absolute mind-independence as a dogmatic ideology. [i.e. to the extent, the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists when human are extinct].

P-realists are stuck deeply in the mind-independent ideological rut and will ground such illusory beliefs in all their discussion of reality.

The problem with p-realists is they insist on forcing anti-p-realists [who had advanced] to adopt their primal, proto- barbaric beliefs of absolutely mind-independence. Some [not all] p-realists will kill those who do not agree with them.

[Iwannaplato]

Shifting??

Yes, shifting. I did read your whole post.
External and mind-independent need not be the same thing. It depends how you define the latter term and this seems to shift.

But if we go back to the first mention of external-ness in this thread we have...

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.

So, the most real is something else. The most real understanding of things and other people is that they are not external to us. Or, in this case, to you.

So, the most real understanding is that other people are not external to you. Are they internal? Are you one thing with them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. There is an inherent evolutionary default of external-ness or mind-independence critical for basic survival.
2. But Philosophical Realists cling to this default as a dogmatic ideology as the most real which is absurd and illusory.
3. Philosophical realists are insisting in taking an ASSUMPTION as really real in reality.
viewtopic.php?p=649133#p649133

The point is in a limited forum like this, the full details are restricted.

The term 'mind-independence' in 1 above need to be considered with 'Principle of Charity' within the context of 1, 2 and 3.

To be more precise in context, 1 would read;

1. There is an inherent evolutionary default of natural external-ness or natural mind-independence critical for basic survival.
In this sense natural sense of external-ness is applicable to all living organism while naturally mind-independence is applicable mainly to homo-sapiens who are highly minded.

The critical point is p-realists within the last 5000-3000 years ago adopted natural external-ness or natural mind-independence, as an ideology with dogmatism.

3. Philosophical realists are insisting in taking an ASSUMPTION of mind-independence as really real in reality- this is delusional.

The most real is not something else, but the same emergence & realization [note this*] view in different perspectives, e.g. ordinary water viewed under a microscope, electron microscope and other more refined instruments.

* there is no absolutely mind-independent thing as claimed by p-realists.

Critical Point,
p-realists must realized, due to an evolutionary default they are wearing Philosophical-Realism tinted glasses glued to the side of their head.
As such, when discussing any philosophical issues, p-realists can only view the issues grounded on their fixed Philosophical-Realism tinted glasses [generating illusions] without any ability to shift perspective to what is really-real.

[Iwannaplato]

1. There is an inherent evolutionary default of natural external-ness or natural mind-independence critical for basic survival.

But you need to explain why this is the case? Why can't actions and reflexes take care of the animals needs? Why would it need an at root false concept to survive.

In this sense natural sense of external-ness is applicable to all living organism while naturally mind-independence is applicable mainly to homo-sapiens who are highly minded.

All an animal needs to do is act in ways that lead to survival and procreation. It doesn not need to concept of externalness.

3. Philosophical realists are insisting in taking an ASSUMPTION of mind-independence as really real in reality- this is delusional.

Why would something delusional work better than something that is true - in the case of animals? Why do these need this false idea of externalness?

As such, when discussing any philosophical issues, p-realists can only view the issues grounded on their fixed Philosophical-Realism tinted glasses [generating illusions] without any ability to shift perspective to what is really-real.

So, again, in the really real, other people, including p-realists are not external to you, then? What are they? Internal to you? not distinct from you or in some way a single being with you?

If you were to meet Peter Holmes, is he external to you or internal to you or are you both part of one thing?
And when you shake hands and walk away and no longer see each other, is he external to you, internal, something else?

[Atla]

Looks like he'll never tell us, what other people are to him, if they aren't really-real.

Maybe what is "most real" to him, is some kind of cognitive process that handles FSKs. An "apriori" FSK management system or something. A way he thinks. Other people are unreal compared to that.

[CIN]

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?

4 doesn't follow. What you should have written is this:

• 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, humans cannot be independent of reality.

Which is true.
In your version, you got the part and the whole the wrong way round in 4.
Next time, read what you wrote before you post it, to see that it makes sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In general Concepts and conceptualization are confined only to humans.

• Concepts are defined as abstract ideas.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction
  Abstraction is a conceptual process wherein general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples, literal ("real" or "concrete") signifiers, first principles, or other methods.
  "An abstraction" is the outcome of this process—a concept that acts as a common noun for all subordinate concepts and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

What sort of rational mind would attribute 'concepts' to bacteria or animals.

There are various meanings to 'sense'.
When I refer to a 'sense of external-ness', it is with reference to;
-a way in which an expression or a situation can be interpreted; a meaning.
not referring to the human five senses.

Instead of 'sense', I shall refer to 'a mode of externalness' [to facilitate basic survival] in all living organisms from 3 billion years to the present including humans.
This mode of external-ness can be classify as a spontaneous response, primal instincts, and the like.

My point is p-realists [humans] are fixated on this 'mode of externalness' as a concept [only human actively conceptualize] and grab it as an ideology, i.e. philosophical realism.
Since p-realists are so fixated on such a primal instinct as an ideology, their philosophical view grounded on the ideology is primal, proto- and barbaric.

I have stated many times, e.g. the oncoming train on the track I am standing on is external to me, not in my head. As such, I will jump off the rails to avoid that external train.
When I see any man, say Mr. X, he is external person to me [not existing in my head] from the common and conventional human-based FSR-FSK.
But ultimately, because it is grounded on a human-based FSR-FSK, it follows deductively, the external person cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

A covid19 virus with its covid19-based FSR-FSK would not realized Mr. X as an external person like all humans do.
It is likely a covid19 with its covid19-based FSR-FSK will cognize a denser bundle of molecules which it need to infect and multiply.
A 100% sonar bat with its sonar-bat-based FSR-FSK will cognize a denser bundle of molecules and not an external person like all humans do.

So, there is no absolute mind-independent things such as an external person out there.
Whatever is real is conditioned to the specific FSR-FSK.

For those who do not understand the above, research on Kant's concept of empirical-realism vs transcendental idealism. Make sure one understand [not necessary agree with] the theme thoroughly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

4 doesn't follow. What you should have written is this:

• 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, humans cannot be independent of reality.

Which is true.
In your version, you got the part and the whole the wrong way round in 4.
Next time, read what you wrote before you post it, to see that it makes sense.

Thanks, but that is a bit pedantic; ignorant of the Principle of Charity?
The sequence may not be aligned nicely but 4 is still sound because generally the point is,

reality and things are mind-independent,
thus my counter, reality and things cannot be mind-independent
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• Philosophical realism .. is the view that a certain kind of thing 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.