Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Skepdick]

Well you can "prove" whatever illogical, irrational lie you want to prove to yourself, but as you can see others aren't buying it. We aren't real anyway to you, you've abandoned your humanity when you became a solipsist. Or were you always one?

You give a damn if you are real? Such frivolous quality.

Suppose you are not real. So what?

[Atla]

Well you can "prove" whatever illogical, irrational lie you want to prove to yourself, but as you can see others aren't buying it. We aren't real anyway to you, you've abandoned your humanity when you became a solipsist. Or were you always one?

You give a damn if you are real? Such frivolous quality.

Suppose you are not real. So what?

Fine fine, you aren't real.
Hmm that's sort of a relief. Hey this negative noumenon thing works wonders!

[Veritas Aequitas]

The original question was;

Let's even give a concrete example: I put the following in a room in a field. A stuffed horse, a computer, a set of big fluffy red dice, two chairs, a large painting on the wall of a dog staring with big eyes, and a bed in the room.
Why will 100 non-mentally ill Westerns make the same list of things?
viewtopic.php?p=654414#p654414

The listing by the 100 non-mentally ill Westerns should be making the same listing of objects as follow;

1. A stuffed horse,
2. a computer,
3. a set of big fluffy red dice,
4. two chairs,
5. a large painting on the wall of a dog staring with big eyes, and
6. a bed

Whatever description is written, they should have the same referent in the empirical sense.


To respond:
"That makes no sense. Some might expect a bedroom, others a kitchen. Different things on the walls. This answer makes no sense."
that respond really makes no sense.

If the question refer to asking the 100 non-mentally ill Westerns to list what items are in the room,
how can they be expecting a bedroom, others a kitchen, different things on the wall.

Something is very wrong here!

Represent the question again in very clear terms.

I believe because the questioner is a philosophical realist, his grounding is illusory and absurd [this OP], thus landing with the above mess.

[Atla]

.

What can you tell, is it possible that even before you got into philosophy (Advaita, Buddhism, Kant etc.), you were already a solipsist or a schizoid or both?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_ ... y_disorder

[Iwannaplato]

I that respond really makes no sense.

If the question refer to asking the 100 non-mentally ill Westerns to list what items are in the room,
how can they be expecting a bedroom, others a kitchen, different things on the wall.

Something is very wrong here!

Represent the question again in very clear terms.

I believe because the questioner is a philosophical realist, his grounding is illusory and absurd [this OP], thus landing with the above mess.

Yes, avoid the box example.

Again we fill two boxes that are visibly the same, each box 1 meter cubed. We fill each box with 10 items and the person who fills the box makes a list of the 10 items. The two boxes have different items.

Each box is in a separate room. We send people 1 at time into each room. They open the box and then write down what they see in the box.

We send 50 people into each room. The compare lists.

Why would the lists be nearly always the same for Box 1 and for Box 2?

No cultural expectations could explain the near perfect sameness. Because the group opening box 1 would have the same expectations as those opening box two. And yet they will produce two very different lists and lists that are the same an the other people who opened the box they opened.

That their brains are very similar also would not explain why those opening box 1 would have a different list than those opening box 2. Further there is no good explanation why their lists match the lists of the person who filled the boxes.

Further, in your explanation culture and brain similarity explain why the lists are the same.
1) then there shouldn't be a difference between the lists produced by those who open Box 1 and the lists produced by those who open Box 2
2) But then, if people are expecting the items in the boxes, they should be able to guess - out of all the possible items produced in Western culture, what's in each box. They shouldn't even need to look inside. But they can't do this.

So, why the consistancy, when the quantum soup in each box could become anything?

We could even have a computer randomly choose 10 different items for each box, from a list of thousands of objects. Or heck, to make it all cheaper. Produce two lists of nouns that are put on pieces of paper in the boxes. Why would every person opening box one find the same objects or slips of paper, and the same happens with box two and those who open that one, and the two lists are different?

Why do people keep finding the same things in each respective box? Out of all the possible objects that the quantum soup could become?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, why the consistency, when the quantum soup in each box could become anything?
I believe this is the problem that confused and created the mess.

The above scenario is an impossibility. It is likely a strawman.

For simplicity, let's fill the one box with an apple.


In this case, the apple will remain an EMPIRICAL apple and there is no way it could become anything, e.g. an orange or a dog, etc. in the next second or minutes, hours.

It is absolutely irrelevant to bring in the idea of a 'quantum soup' in this case.

Even in the case of,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
there is no question of the possibility of the 'moon' having the possibility of becoming a Sun or something else when one relook at it at every turn.
In such an exercise, the empirical moon will remain the empirical moon every time it interacts with the human conditions.

In the case of the moon, it took billions of years for the present moon to coalesce from the quantum soup to be what it is at the present.

The point of the OP is,
whatever the reality, be it moon, things in a box, they cannot be absolutely mind-independent as the philosophical realists are insisting them to be.

[Flannel Jesus]

But if someone created an FSK that says the apple will turn into a peach, and enough people agree with that fsk, then it's objective and it will happen.

[Iwannaplato]

So, why the consistency, when the quantum soup in each box could become anything?
I believe this is the problem that confused and created the mess.

The above scenario is an impossibility. It is likely a strawman.

For simplicity, let's fill the one box with an apple.


In this case, the apple will remain an EMPIRICAL apple and there is no way it could become anything, e.g. an orange or a dog, etc. in the next second or minutes, hours.

It is absolutely irrelevant to bring in the idea of a 'quantum soup' in this case.

Even in the case of,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
there is no question of the possibility of the 'moon' having the possibility of becoming a Sun or something else when one relook at it at every turn.
In such an exercise, the empirical moon will remain the empirical moon every time it interacts with the human conditions.

In the case of the moon, it took billions of years for the present moon to coalesce from the quantum soup to be what it is at the present.

The point of the OP is,
whatever the reality, be it moon, things in a box, they cannot be absolutely mind-independent as the philosophical realists are insisting them to be.

OK, so it stays an apple, even when no one is looking in the box.
That's realism.
The particles there retain the imprint of appleness.

The apple does not exist when on one is looking at it.
How does something that does not exist age? And why would it?

We wait one month, get a new person to look in the box. Why do they see an old rotten apple?

[Iwannaplato]

But if someone created an FSK that says the apple will turn into a peach, and enough people agree with that fsk, then it's objective and it will happen.

No, no. You've misunderstood. A FSK can lead to objective false conclusions 99.9% of the time.
But it's not intersubjective, it's objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But if someone created an FSK that says the apple will turn into a peach, and enough people agree with that fsk, then it's objective and it will happen.

If there is a proper FSK for that, it is objective as defined.
But the degree of objectivity will be very low [0.001/100] in contrast to the scientific FSK and it will not happen in reality.

[Flannel Jesus]

If there is a proper FSK for that, it is objective as defined.
But the degree of objectivity will be very low [0.001/100] in contrast to the scientific FSK and it will not happen in reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

OK, so it stays an apple, even when no one is looking in the box.
That's realism.
The particles there retain the imprint of appleness.
Not philosophical realism but rather empirical realism [Kantian].

To invoke philosophical realism is absurd and illusory as explained in the OP.

The particles do not retain the imprint of appleness; appleness is within the human-based science-biology FSK.

The apple does not exist when on one is looking at it.
How does something that does not exist age? And why would it?

Within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the science-biology FSK.

We wait one month, get a new person to look in the box. Why do they see an old rotten apple?
As above, within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the human based science-biology FSK.

The reality is there is no mind-independent apple that changes in time as the philosophical realists will claim within their dogmatic ideology.

The reality of all the above actions is they are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK, thus it follows deductively, those reality cannot be absolute mind-independent as the p-realists are insisting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there is a proper FSK for that, it is objective as defined.
But the degree of objectivity will be very low [0.001/100] in contrast to the scientific FSK and it will not happen in reality.

You are laughing based on your own ignorance and delusional beliefs.

[Flannel Jesus]

OK, so it stays an apple, even when no one is looking in the box.
That's realism.
The particles there retain the imprint of appleness.
Not philosophical realism but rather empirical realism [Kantian].

To invoke philosophical realism is absurd and illusory as explained in the OP.

The particles do not retain the imprint of appleness; appleness is within the human-based science-biology FSK.

The apple does not exist when on one is looking at it.
How does something that does not exist age? And why would it?

Within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the science-biology FSK.

We wait one month, get a new person to look in the box. Why do they see an old rotten apple?
As above, within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the human based science-biology FSK.

The reality is there is no mind-independent apple that changes in time as the philosophical realists will claim within their dogmatic ideology.

The reality of all the above actions is they are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK, thus it follows deductively, those reality cannot be absolute mind-independent as the p-realists are insisting.

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

[Atla]

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

I think you just discovered the secret to human immortality