Morality: How Humans Enable a Mind-Independent Reality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Morality: How Humans Enable a Mind-Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

As I had argued, it is grounding of Philosophical Realism driven by an evolutionary default that philosophical realists relied upon to reject moral facts and morality is objective.

Here is one explanation of How Humans Enable a Mind-Independent Reality;
From,
The Dream of Reality: Heinz von Foerster's Constructivism
Lynn Segal

"Once a concept is constructed it is immediately externalized
so that it appears to the subject as a perceptually given property of the object and independent of the subject's own mental activity.
The tendency of mental activities to become automatized and for their results to be perceived as external to the subject
is what leads to the conviction that there is a reality independent of thought.”

The details as follow;
A Closer Look at the Observer
Reality supposedly contains objects that either are stationary or change their position in space.
Though some objects, like human beings, have a changeable structure, they are perceived as having sameness and continuity.
Our structure is constantly changing, but our friends and relatives recognize us as the same persons.
“What do we mean by change?” asks von Foerster.
“Despite change in appearance of an object, as when a cube is rotated or a person turns around, we take it to be the same object.”30
How does change apply to a “tree growing, or when we meet an old school mate after a decade or two?
Are they different or are they the same?”3l
Perceiving reality depends on distinguishing between invariance and change.
  • Invariance: The property of remaining unchanged regardless of changes in the conditions of measurement.
Newborns do not yet have the capacity to take the manifold experiences with the same object and to “compute” its invariance, its unchanging nature.
They cannot yet recognize the equivalence of the implied thing presented now with the implied thing of before.

THE MYTH OF OBJECTIVlTY 21
But that is not surprising, since that equivalence is a complicated logical operation—which can determine, for example, that it is a single object that produces the same constantly changing images on the retina and has a constantly changing position in the room at the end of my waving arm.
Developmental studies of children, conducted by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, show that we learn to perceive object constancy.
It takes about 18 months; Piaget calls this type of learning “sensorimotor intelligence.”
It “involves the establishment of relationships and correspondences (functions) and classification of schemes (cf. the logic of classes); in structures of ordering and assembling that constitute a substructure for the future operations of thought.”

Sensorimotor intelligence

“organizes reality by constructing broad categories of action which are the schemes of the permanent object, space, time, causality.” 32
Piaget, Jean and Inhelder, Barbel. (1969). The psychology of the child.
New York: Basic Books, Inc., p. 13.

For instance, sit down with a five-year-old child and lay out five pennies in a row on the top of a table.
Then give the child five pennies and ask him to make a row matching your own.
This the child can do easily.
A five-year-old child can also tell you that each row has the same number of pennies.
If, however, you increase the space between the pennies in one of the rows and then ask him which row contains more pennies, a five-year-old child will say the longer row has more pennies than the shorter row.

Elkind notes that the same exercise with a seven-year-old has a different outcome.
“In the first place the child regards the question as rather stupid and replies that of course the two rows have the same number of pennies since nothing was added or taken away and spreading them apart does not alter their number.
The older child takes as self-evident, or a priori, what only a few years ago he did not know existed.

Once a concept is constructed it is immediately externalized
so that it appears to the subject as a perceptually given property of the object and independent of the subject's own mental activity.
The tendency of mental activities to become automatized and for their results to be perceived as external to the subject
is what leads to the conviction that there is a reality independent of thought.” 33
[33 Elkind, David (Ed.). (1958). Six Psychological studies by Jean Piaget. New York: Vintage Books, pp. xi—xii]

Piaget's work suggests that we reevaluate the meaning of factual knowledge.
On his 81st birthday, in a debate with the linguist Noam Chomsky, Piaget stated:
“Fifty years of experience have taught us that knowledge does not result from a mere recording of observations without a structuring activity on the part of the subject."37
Von Glasersfeld, Ernst. On radical constructivism, in Watzlawick, Paul, Ed. (1984). The invented reality: How do we know? New York: W. W. Norton. p. 18.

Thus, there are no ‘pure facts.’
A fact is interpreted from the moment of its observation.
The above is a quickie, to thoroughly understand the point one will need to read the book and preferable a few times.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Sep 06, 2023 10:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality: How Humans Enable a Mind-Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Notes: KIV
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8532
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Morality: How Humans Enable a Mind-Independent Reality

Post by Iwannaplato »

I found the title of the thread confusing. I think it is more clear if you say How Humans come to believe in a Mind Independent Reality.

If humans enable something, it exists. And I don't think you are trying to say that Mind-independent reality exists.
Unless you've changed your position and the rest of the text does not support your having changed your position.

Note: this is not me disagreeing with you, this is me suggesting the title doesn't fit what you mean or the OP is about.

I suppose you could say How Humans Enable the Belief in MEI.

But I think that's awkward.

Why Humans conclude there is MIE....perhaps.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality: How Humans Enable a Mind-Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:40 pm I found the title of the thread confusing. I think it is more clear if you say How Humans come to believe in a Mind Independent Reality.

If humans enable something, it exists. And I don't think you are trying to say that Mind-independent reality exists.
Unless you've changed your position and the rest of the text does not support your having changed your position.

Note: this is not me disagreeing with you, this is me suggesting the title doesn't fit what you mean or the OP is about.

I suppose you could say How Humans Enable the Belief in MEI.

But I think that's awkward.

Why Humans conclude there is MIE....perhaps.
I did have a problem with coming up with an effective OP; even this is related to "Constructivism' I avoided 'mind-independent reality is constructed by humans' because the term 'construct' can be very misleading when one do not understand the term in its context.

I started the OP with
"As I had argued, it is grounding of Philosophical Realism driven by an evolutionary default that philosophical realists relied upon to reject moral facts and morality is objective."
  • Philosophical Realism .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) 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
My point of the OP is to show that the ideology of absolute mind-independence of philosophical realism is related to the human brain [human conditions]; there is no such thing as an absolute mind-independent reality or thing.

As Piaget's principles demonstrated what is independent reality evolved from birth to childhood to adulthood on an individual basis.

A philosophical realist will counter, but there was already an independent reality before the child was born or "constructed" it.
But in the above Book, Segal argued 'change is constant' thus there was no pre-existing fixed permanent thing before reality emerged with the child.

Re OP,
"Thus, there are no ‘pure facts.’
A fact is interpreted from the moment of its observation."
..meaning, there are no absolutely mind-independent facts.
Post Reply