Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Veritas Aequitas]

No such things.
To accuse someone of a certain claims, provide specific evidences and ensure one thoroughly understand the full concept.

The problem is the p-realists are such hardcore dogmatic they will always view and critique other perspectives from solely their ideological perspective of philosophical realism [mind-independent].

E.g.


The above as an example;
The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image.
When others insist there are two cubes, they are condemned as stupid or in some cases, even killed.

[Atla]

No such things.
To accuse someone of a certain claims, provide specific evidences and ensure one thoroughly understand the full concept.

The problem is the p-realists are such hardcore dogmatic they will always view and critique other perspectives from solely their ideological perspective of philosophical realism [mind-independent].

E.g.


The above as an example;
The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image.
When others insist there are two cubes, they are condemned as stupid or in some cases, even killed.

What the fuck are you talking about and how does it relate to externalness?

[Atla]

I can't believe this moron thinks I'm that kind of "p-realist". That means he has ZERO, ABSOLUTELY ZERO comprehension skills.
It's more likely that someone as fanatical and clueless as VA will go on a killing spree anyway.

[Atla]

It's more likely that someone as fanatical and clueless as VA will go on a killing spree anyway.

Besides, other people aren't real anyway so what's the harm

[Flannel Jesus]

E.g.


The above as an example;
The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image.
When others insist there are two cubes, they are condemned as stupid or in some cases, even killed.

I tried googling examples of people being condemned as stupid or killed by realists. I couldn't find any. And certainly not in regards to how people view line drawings of cubes. Do you have a link to any articles about these incidents?

[Iwannaplato]

E.g.


The above as an example;
The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image.
When others insist there are two cubes, they are condemned as stupid or in some cases, even killed.

I tried googling examples of people being condemned as stupid or killed by realists. I couldn't find any. And certainly not in regards to how people view line drawings of cubes. Do you have a link to any articles about these incidents?

He's conflated the use of the Necker Cube in arguments against naive realism with what realists are capable of experiencing. Neckar cubes are used against the naive realist position that we see the world the way it is, period. Actually, there is no cube there at all, but we tend to see a cube and there are two different cubes we can see. IOW according to naive realists there should be a 3d object there, but there isn't. But it's not that realists can't see two cubes, some certainly can and will, especially if told how or that some see two. It's that really it's a two dimensional object.

Further it's not like antirealists see 2 cubes more often than realists. Seeing two cubes has no connection to one's philosophy. So the whole thing is BS. I think he skimmed too fast in reading about Necker Cubes in relation to naive realism - and by the way PH, his nemesis, is not a naive realist - and then added the kind of hysteria he usually reserves for Muslims.

But then we get to the horrible part. His generalized ad hom and insult that realists, some of them, kill people for seeing two cubes.

He's just making shit up and now at a really offensive level.

Sadly, I wonder if an apology is even possible.

The Necker cube is used in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and provides a counter-attack against naïve realism. Naïve realism (also known as direct or common-sense realism) states that the way we perceive the world is the way the world actually is. The Necker cube seems to disprove this claim because we see one or the other of two cubes, but really, there is no cube there at all: only a two-dimensional drawing of twelve lines. We see something which is not really there, thus (allegedly) disproving naïve realism.

[Atla]

No such things.
To accuse someone of a certain claims, provide specific evidences and ensure one thoroughly understand the full concept.

The problem is the p-realists are such hardcore dogmatic they will always view and critique other perspectives from solely their ideological perspective of philosophical realism [mind-independent].

As for perspectives, I claimed that you're the one who is using perspectives in a self-contradictory way.

We can't say that the science-FSK is the best perspective, and also say that the science-FSK is only the second best perspective and is always subsumed in some kind of negative Kantian mindfuck perspective where there is nothing beyond appearances.

So is the science-FSK perspective #1 or #2?

(Or did your Kant perhaps pretend that his negative view is not a perspective, but is always 'behind' or 'beneath' all the perspectives, and you believed him?)

[Veritas Aequitas]

E.g.


The above as an example;
The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image.
When others insist there are two cubes, they are condemned as stupid or in some cases, even killed.

I tried googling examples of people being condemned as stupid or killed by realists. I couldn't find any. And certainly not in regards to how people view line drawings of cubes. Do you have a link to any articles about these incidents?

I was not very precise which is not practical in the forum like this [having to rush to do other things].
I should also qualify p-realists [some not all].
I am not submitting a PhD thesis here, so my presentations here are in a very draft mode.

If you read the whole context;

• The problem is the p-realists are such hardcore dogmatic they will always view and critique other perspectives from solely their ideological perspective of philosophical realism [mind-independent].
  E.g. re Necker Cube

I was thinking very hard to find the appropriate example, as a quickie I refer to the Necker Cube.

Note not all one-cubers are p-realists and vice-versa.
As a convenience I represent,
p-realists = those who see only one cube therein [one-cubers]
non-p_realists = those who can see two cubes.
to denote the difference in mental capacities to have a wider cognition and perspective in reference to the discussed issues.

As such, I intention was to assert that the one-cubers did kill the two-cubers, but rather p-realists had killed non-p_realists in extreme [..I had qualified this often but missed out in the above post] cases.

One good example of p-realists are theists who believe in a mind-independent God who had created a mind-independent universe and all things therein.
You cannot deny theists had been and still are killing non-believers who are accused of blasphemy against their mind-independent God.

This is to emphasize that the p-realists' beliefs are grounded on very primal, proto and 'barbaric' impulses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My principle;
Reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK; the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible and objective at present.

While the scientific FSR-FSK deal with external-ness and internal-ness, these are ultimately subsumed within the human conditions [human-based].
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, that the emergence and realization of reality within the human-based scientific FSR-FSK CANNOT be mind-independent.
Because the emergence and realization of reality CANNOT be mind-independent, philosophical realism [mind-independence] is false and illusory.

My main purpose is to refute philosophical-realism with reference to 'what is real'.

I have never stated literally, the scientific-FSK is the second best at present.

[Atla]

My principle;
Reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK; the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible and objective at present.

While the scientific FSR-FSK deal with external-ness and internal-ness, these are ultimately subsumed within the human conditions [human-based].
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, that the emergence and realization of reality within the human-based scientific FSR-FSK CANNOT be mind-independent.
Because the emergence and realization of reality CANNOT be mind-independent, philosophical realism [mind-independence] is false and illusory.

My main purpose is to refute philosophical-realism with reference to 'what is real'.

I have never stated literally, the scientific-FSK is the second best at present.

So you admit with your own words that you think the most credible and objective view is false and illusory. What now?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"So you admit with your own words that you think the most credible and objective view is false and illusory. What now?"
Strawman!!

[Flannel Jesus]

Note not all one-cubers are p-realists and vice-versa.
As a convenience I represent,
p-realists = those who see only one cube therein [one-cubers]
non-p_realists = those who can see two cubes.

Prove it.

[Iwannaplato]

I was not very precise which is not practical in the forum like this [having to rush to do other things].
I should also qualify p-realists [some not all].
I am not submitting a PhD thesis here, so my presentations here are in a very draft mode.

Basically you are saying that p-realists are more likely to get violent than antirealists, even to the degree of killing. Trust me, no one thinks you were aiming at a PHD thesis. However when making such a claim even in a casual conversation, let alone a philosophy forum, most people are going to expect some kind of justification. Just as you expect justification from other people with great regularity for their claims.

So this 'it's not a PHD thesis' is disingenous in the extreme, given that you expect others to justify assertions and that there is tremendous swingroom between a thesis and just insulting large groups of people. It's like you're saying 'I gave no justification at all for my wild assertion since I don't have time to write a PHD thesis.' Further the 'it's not a PHD thesis' is essentially a strawman. No one was expecting a long document with footnotes and extremely well thought out reasoning based on that level of research and reading and....so on.
What's up with you lately?

I was thinking very hard to find the appropriate example, as a quickie I refer to the Necker Cube.

Note not all one-cubers are p-realists and vice-versa.
As a convenience I represent,
p-realists = those who see only one cube therein [one-cubers]
non-p_realists = those who can see two cubes.
to denote the difference in mental capacities to have a wider cognition and perspective in reference to the discussed issues.

You completely misunderstood/misrepresented the Necker Cube and how it is used in discussions of NAIVE realism

As such, I intention was to assert that the one-cubers did kill the two-cubers, but rather p-realists had killed non-p_realists in extreme [..I had qualified this often but missed out in the above post] cases.

But there is no evidence at all that realists see less cubes than antirealists. You have completely misrepresented how the Necker Cube is used in relation to NAIVE realism. This is a joke.

One good example of p-realists are theists who believe in a mind-independent God who had created a mind-independent universe and all things therein.

Those theists that are realists have killed other realists. This is BS.

You cannot deny theists had been and still are killing non-believers who are accused of blasphemy against their mind-independent God.

You haven't remotely shown that this has anything to do with realism. Most people in the world still are and have been realists. It's fallacious reasoning. They have also eaten carbohydrates, worked, and played as children. Coupling those activities with murder would be immoral. This is a failure in basic reasoning.

Not much time, lol. You wrote about 20 posts in the last 24 hours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note not all one-cubers are p-realists and vice-versa.
As a convenience I represent,
p-realists = those who see only one cube therein [one-cubers]
non-p_realists = those who can see two cubes.

Prove it.

You missed my point, perhaps I was not clear.
I did not insist p-realists see only one-cube.

When I stated p-realists are like the one-cubers as an example, my main point was to propose the p-realists do not have the mental capacity to see a wider perspective.
In particular they are stuck with the evolutionary default of the mode of external-ness as an ideology dogmatically.

P-realists are stuck with mind-independent dogmatically with one perspective and unable to view and switch between mind-independent and not-mind-independent.

I could have used other examples, such as the duck-rabbit illusion, the pretty lady-old hag illusion, and other similar illusions.

[Flannel Jesus]

You are doing a really poor job of communicating your thoughts clearly here. When you say things like "The p-realists are only capable of seeing one-cube in the above image", you're not making it clear that you're trying to make it a metaphor or analogy. It sounds like you're saying that realists actually all think that. Can you see that?