Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Flannel Jesus]

I have already explained somewhere.

Theists as philosophical realists believe in a mind-independent God creating a mind-independent universe.
DO YOU deny theists [also philosophical realists] had killed millions of non-believers for blasphemy and merely as non-believers?

I deny that the reason they killed people can be broken down to realism. Maybe they killed people because they disagreed with people - and YOU disagree with people - so maybe I should be scared that you're going to go on a murdering rampage because you have that in common with religious killers.

[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?

Agree.

I had assumed that others could easily understand it is a metaphor or analogy but I was wrong. I take the blame in not communicating precisely.
As I had stated, to explain in details is time consuming thus there is a tendency to take short cuts and assumed.

However, if you are not sure or dispute my point we can always trash it out, since this is a discussion forum, like now, which I hope you got my point?

Note when debating issues that has a wide dichotomy like the very fundamental issue of philosophical realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism, misunderstanding by either parties is very likely to happen.

Okay, allow me to make your metaphor clearer than you could:

You're saying, realists are fundamentally less capable of seeing ideas from various point of views compared to anti realists. They're more stubborn and there's only one correct way to view anything to them.

But... Exactly the opposite of that played out in our Quantum physics discussion. YOU were arguing that there's only one correct way to view quantum physics - that is, to view it in a way that means everything is mind dependent and the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking - and I, on the other hand, as a realist, was arguing that there's MORE than one way to understand quantum mechanics.

So how is it that realists are supposed to stubbornly only see one way to view things, and yet our quantum physics conversation played out in the exact opposite way? In that conversation, you were very much like the guy who can only see the cube one way, and I was the guy who could see the cube multiple ways.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already explained somewhere.

Theists as philosophical realists believe in a mind-independent God creating a mind-independent universe.
DO YOU deny theists [also philosophical realists] had killed millions of non-believers for blasphemy and merely as non-believers?

I deny that the reason they killed people can be broken down to realism. Maybe they killed people because they disagreed with people - and YOU disagree with people - so maybe I should be scared that you're going to go on a murdering rampage because you have that in common with religious killers.

You missed my argument either specifically or in pieces in various posts.

The argument is this;

• 1. All humans are evolved with a mode [sense] of external_ness of facilitate basic survival, i.e. to search for food, be wary of threats, look for spouse, etc. from the external world.
  
  2. This natural external-ness generate a sense of reality of the external world which is critical for basic survival.
  Thus whatever is external must be really-real, so real that their survival and avoidance of threats relied upon such a mode. So it is instinctualized that the external reality and things are human-body, brain & mind-independent.
  
  3. The mode of externalness is so critical to survival [else pains arise if survival is threatened] that the majority clung to this mode of externalness as an ideology. In the beginning was theism and the mind-independent God and subsequently philosophical realism.
  
  4. Because the mode of externalness is clung as an ideology [of human, mind independence] to relieve the pains arising if survival is threatened, any opposition to such an mind-independent ideological will trigger instinctual fears and pains arising from the threat to survival.
  
  5. The easiest ways to relieve the arising existential pains is to get rid of its sources, i.e. shut the opposition [anti-realists] or kill them which is very evident with theists who are basically philosophical realists.

My point is it is evident philosophical realists as theists [mind-independent God] did and will kill those who oppose their ideology of philosophical realism.

From the philosophical community note the terrible condemnations from the philosophical realists like those of the analytical schools dumping their arrows at idealists. Are you aware of this at all?

Also note as evident how intellectual violent the philosophical realists here [not you] are when they encounter anti-realists views; this is because their ideology is threatened and terrible pains exude subliminal in their psyche, that is why they have to pound those who oppose their ideology.

Btw, I am not insisting ALL p-realists are violent and in extreme kill those who oppose them; I have never done that.

On the other hand, I am not insisting anti-philosophical_realists [there are many types and shades] are not violent at all;
but a Buddhist-proper or a Kantian anti-realist is not likely to be violent or threatened by opposition to their beliefs because they can see both sides of the issues [e.g. re Necker as an analogy; see two cubes rather than one]

[Flannel Jesus]

From the philosophical community note the terrible condemnations from the philosophical realists like those of the analytical schools dumping their arrows at idealists. Are you aware of this at all?

Also note as evident how intellectual violent the philosophical realists here [not you] are when they encounter anti-realists views; this is because their ideology is threatened and terrible pains exude subliminal in their psyche, that is why they have to pound those who oppose their ideology.

Why are you saying "note"? Note this, note that. How can I note something I haven't seen? Don't tell me to note it before you show me it. "Note" is not the right word to use there, not without a link to the thing I'm supposed to be noting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Agree.

I had assumed that others could easily understand it is a metaphor or analogy but I was wrong. I take the blame in not communicating precisely.
As I had stated, to explain in details is time consuming thus there is a tendency to take short cuts and assumed.

However, if you are not sure or dispute my point we can always trash it out, since this is a discussion forum, like now, which I hope you got my point?

Note when debating issues that has a wide dichotomy like the very fundamental issue of philosophical realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism, misunderstanding by either parties is very likely to happen.

Okay, allow me to make your metaphor clearer than you could:

You're saying, realists are fundamentally less capable of seeing ideas from various point of views compared to anti realists. They're more stubborn and there's only one correct way to view anything to them.

Right and exactly, but note it is related to the issue of reality; the question of the ontology of reality.

But... Exactly the opposite of that played out in our Quantum physics discussion. YOU were arguing that there's only one correct way to view quantum physics - that is, to view it in a way that means everything is mind dependent and the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking - and I, on the other hand, as a realist, was arguing that there's MORE than one way to understand quantum mechanics.

So how is it that realists are supposed to stubbornly only see one way to view things, and yet our quantum physics conversation played out in the exact opposite way? In that conversation, you were very much like the guy who can only see the cube one way, and I was the guy who could see the cube multiple ways.

Not sure where did you claim you have more that one way to understand quantum mechanics.
If I recalled, you are with Einstein and Sean Carroll, and the like, who believe the moon pre-existed humans and the moon [if nothing extra-ordinary happened] will exists even after human are extinct.

You have not agreed, the existence of the moon is not mind-independent of humans, body, brain and mind, i.e. which is the anti-philosophical realist position.

Note I am arguing according the most credible human-based science-QM, reality cannot be mind-independent of the humans, body, brain and mind. That is one view of reality.

But within the human-based common and conventional sense FSR-FSK, reality is taken to be independent of humans, body, brain and mind, e.g. as in Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics. This is two views of reality.
But because, it is human-based, it follows deductively, the ultimate resultant reality that emerged and is realized within the human-based common sense FSR-FSK CANNOT be mind-independent.

So the anti-philosophical_realists [Kantian] do have a few views [more than one] of reality and not stubbornly clinging to only one view of the emergence and realization of reality.
Note the emergence and realization of reality prior to it being perceived, known and described is very critical to the issue. It is like you and other p-realists could be blind-sighted to it due to selective attention.

Note the 500 pound gorilla experiment;
selective attention test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
where the group did not see the big black gorilla right amongst them.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, you're wrong on very many counts there.

You claimed that qm proves the moon isn't there when no one is looking. I replied with, that is ONE interpretation of qm, and there are many. So in that conversation, I was the one acknowledging the existence of multiple competing points of view while you were holding steadfast to your one point of view as being the only possible correct one.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Einstein still. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics in many ways. I've never been ambiguous about thinking that. I'm not "with Einstein". Sean Carroll, yes, and interestingly enough, Stephen hawking also prefers Sean Carroll's interpretation of qm as well.

All you have to say is, "there are more legitimately competing interpretations of qm than the one I prefer". Can you say that? If you say that, then my previous post goes up in smoke.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the philosophical community note the terrible condemnations from the philosophical realists like those of the analytical schools dumping their arrows at idealists. Are you aware of this at all?

Also note as evident how intellectual violent the philosophical realists here [not you] are when they encounter anti-realists views; this is because their ideology is threatened and terrible pains exude subliminal in their psyche, that is why they have to pound those who oppose their ideology.

Why are you saying "note"? Note this, note that. How can I note something I haven't seen? Don't tell me to note it before you show me it. "Note" is not the right word to use there, not without a link to the thing I'm supposed to be noting.

It is a sort of a habitual word I used to 'direct and heighten one's attention to something'.
In the above 'note' it is evident [recently and in the past] there is a lot of intellectual violence thrown at me since I have joined this forum.
It is not wrong of me to request you to take 'note' to notice them.

ALso, my use of note arise because I always encounter poster talking pass one another, omission due to selective attention, strawmanning me, and as mentioned earlier;

Note the 500 pound gorilla experiment;
selective attention test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
where the group did not see the big black gorilla right amongst them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you're wrong on very many counts there.

You claimed that qm proves the moon isn't there when no one is looking. I replied with, that is ONE interpretation of qm, and there are many. So in that conversation, I was the one acknowledging the existence of multiple competing points of view while you were holding steadfast to your one point of view as being the only possible correct one.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Einstein still. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics in many ways. I've never been ambiguous about thinking that. I'm not "with Einstein". Sean Carroll, yes, and interestingly enough, Stephen hawking also prefers Sean Carroll's interpretation of qm as well.

All you have to say is, "there are more legitimately competing interpretations of qm than the one I prefer". Can you say that? If you say that, then my previous post goes up in smoke.

It is obvious in science, there are always multiple competing points of view and I acknowledge there are.

There are two main views in QM, i.e. the philosophical-realists' view and the ANTI-philosophical realists' view.

While you accept there are competing views in QM surely you cannot accept both at the same time in the same sense?
Also in terms of reality, one view is more realistic than the other.

But I believe the ANTI-philosophical realists' view is more realistic while the philosophical-realists' is grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
Thus the OP, "Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd".

Can you counter philosophical realism is not illusory?

[Flannel Jesus]

Sure, I can counter it: by following the same strategy as you, claiming it over and over again.

Anyway, the idea should now be fully debunked that realists can only possibly see one cube. You still cannot acknowledge that multiple legitimate ideas compete in the qm space, while I can. So, who sees the single cube now?

[Flannel Jesus]

From the philosophical community note the terrible condemnations from the philosophical realists like those of the analytical schools dumping their arrows at idealists. Are you aware of this at all?

Also note as evident how intellectual violent the philosophical realists here [not you] are when they encounter anti-realists views; this is because their ideology is threatened and terrible pains exude subliminal in their psyche, that is why they have to pound those who oppose their ideology.

Why are you saying "note"? Note this, note that. How can I note something I haven't seen? Don't tell me to note it before you show me it. "Note" is not the right word to use there, not without a link to the thing I'm supposed to be noting.

It is a sort of a habitual word I used to 'direct and heighten one's attention to something'.
In the above 'note' it is evident

I think it would be beneficial if you broke that habit and, instead of just saying "note" emptily, you linked to the evidence of what you'd like people to "note".

I'm not going to note something before I've been given reason to think it's true. That's the wrong order.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sure, I can counter it: by following the same strategy as you, claiming it over and over again.

Anyway, the idea should now be fully debunked that realists can only possibly see one cube. You still cannot acknowledge that multiple legitimate ideas compete in the qm space, while I can. So, who sees the single cube now?

You missed my critical points.

As stated, I accept there are various realization of reality as conditioned to various FSKs, i.e. common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian, Einsteinian and QM.

Within the above FSKs there are competing views.

Within the QM FSK, I accept there are the philosophical_realists views and the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views.
But I claim the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views is more realistic while the p-realists views is grounded on an illusion.

Do you accept the ANTI-philosophical_realists' in QM is true and that it is more realistic than the p-realists' view which is illusory and absurd in representing reality?

[Flannel Jesus]

No, why in the world would I accept that?

[FlashDangerpants]

Within the QM FSK, I accept there are the philosophical_realists views and the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views.
But I claim the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views is more realistic while the p-realists views is grounded on an illusion.

The thing that invalidates the entire enterprise though is that he cannot just accept them both as true. If one is true then that entails the falsehood of the other and there is some reason why the other is wrong. This last thing is what makes it objectively the case theat one is more correct than the other.

He's forgotten why he does this anti-realism rigmarole. It was to support his morality-proper-fsk, which is fabulised and so its elevation requires establishing imagined realities as legitimate equals to any 'real' reality, which therefore requires breaking that link to worldly objectivity for those 'real' realities, and that's why he does the anti-realism thing at all.

[Flannel Jesus]

Within the QM FSK, I accept there are the philosophical_realists views and the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views.
But I claim the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views is more realistic while the p-realists views is grounded on an illusion.

The thing that invalidates the entire enterprise though is that he cannot just accept them both as true.

I'm not even bothered about that. It's cool if he thinks one is true and one is false. What troubled me is that he was talking about one as if that IS quantum mechanics, and the other as if it didn't exist or that it isn't even worth considering.

Like, sure, your preferred interpretation being one thing is... fine. But to just try to erase the other ones out of existence, when it very much tangibly isn't the case that the experts treat the other interpretations that way, is just straight up hubris.

Sean Carroll's approach to qm is what at least 20% of experts agree with at some level, for example, and that's not even the -only- philosophical-realist interpretation. And since we're pitting philosophical-realism against ideas like "minds co-create reality", the question is, what percent of experts in QM would agree with an interpretation of qm they puts the mind at the center? I think it's a very very small minority.

So trying to erase philosophical realism from qm is just pure hubris. It's the leap from "this is how I like to think of qm" to "this IS qm", and it's not a leap I want to let slide.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Within the QM FSK, I accept there are the philosophical_realists views and the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views.
But I claim the ANTI-philosophical_realists' views is more realistic while the p-realists views is grounded on an illusion.

The thing that invalidates the entire enterprise though is that he cannot just accept them both as true.

I'm not even bothered about that. It's cool if he thinks one is true and one is false. What troubled me is that he was talking about one as if that IS quantum mechanics, and the other as if it didn't exist or that it isn't even worth considering.

Like, sure, your preferred interpretation being one thing is... fine. But to just try to erase the other ones out of existence, when it very much tangibly isn't the case that the experts treat the other interpretations that way, is just straight up hubris.

Note we are not just referring to QM purely from the Physics' perspective. I understand from the various perspectives, the do arrive at the same equations which is purely QM-Physics.

In this case of philosophical-realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism we are bringing QM-Physics into the philosophical realm, thus must be debated from the philosophical perspective, i.e. with reference to ontology as to which is more realistic re its existence and becoming.

• In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Thus the questions raised by Einstein;
"God do not play Dice"
"Does the Moon Exists if no one is looking at it."

As I had claimed as indicated above re Einstein, p-realists and theists are "of the same feathers".

As for theism or deism,
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229