IF the Hollow-Mask Illusion is Real...

[Magnus Anderson]

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

Those who claim there is an independent apple-on-the-table out there is absolutely and very real in itself independent of the human condition is delusional, i.e. being ignorant that apple is actually an illusion [like the hollow-mask appearing solid 3D].

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

Your point is that philosophical realists are like those bad guys over there. There is no reasoning, no arguments, whatsoever in your post. Your entire post is basically "See how wrong these guys are? Well, that's how wrong philosophical realists are!" It's a very hollow post.

[Magnus Anderson]

Philosophical Realism claims that reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme they exists even if there are no humans.

Can you define the term "mind-independent"? What does it mean for something to be mind-independent?

[Iwannaplato]

Your point is that philosophical realists are like those bad guys over there. There is no reasoning, no arguments, whatsoever in your post. Your entire post is basically "See how wrong these guys are? Well, that's how wrong philosophical realists are!" It's a very hollow post.

Exactly. There is not argument or justification for the comparison. Here's an example of how a certain group of people get something wrong. Assertion: PH is like those people.

The thread is basically an insult. It should have been a private message.

[Magnus Anderson]

The thread is basically an insult. It should have been a private message.

Precisely. And he should stop referencing Peter Holmes every chance he gets.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing about Peter "Dumb ****" "Amish Roadkill" "Balls Mahoney" Holmes

[LuckyR]

I am sure many people are familiar with the Hollow Mask Illusion where the hollow-mask is always perceived as a real 3D-Convex face. The deception and hollow mask can be verified by empirical inspection i.e. by seeing and feeling the hollowness of the mask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Let's assume this qualified scenario.
No one [none of the 8 billion people] in the world is aware of the Hollow Mask Illusion.
A turning hollow mask is presented to all the 8 billion humans and since they are ignorant of the illusion, they will perceive a 'real 3D-convex face'.
In this example, there is no way, the 8 billion humans will ever be informed that what they are seeing is an illusion.
Based only on this visual empirical evidence, the majority of the 8 billion people will insist it is a real 'real 3D-convex face' face.

However there is 0.32% [Link] [~25,800,000] who insist the majority of the 8 billion people are wrong because to them there is only a hollow-mask!
Why? because ..
Schizophrenics see through hollow-mask illusion
Optical Illusion [e.g. Hollow mask] Detects Illness -Schizophrenia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs

In this case, who are the delusional ones?
the normal majority nearly 8 billion people or the 25 million schizophrenia?
The 25 million schizophrenics are perceiving the real things and thus more realistic.

It is the normal majority who claimed what they are perceiving is reality in itself are delusional.

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

Those who claim there is an independent apple-on-the-table out there is absolutely and very real in itself independent of the human condition is delusional, i.e. being ignorant that apple is actually an illusion [like the hollow-mask appearing solid 3D].

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

This all makes sense... in the pre-technological era. Where the only perspectives were your's and mine. Now there is also the perspective of human made detectors, who can perceive 1) without psychological and behavioral biases and 2) in finer and more varied detail than you or I.

Thus the ability to make observations independent of human limitations is possible (and has been possible for quite a while).

[seeds]

I am sure many people are familiar with the Hollow Mask Illusion where the hollow-mask is always perceived as a real 3D-Convex face. The deception and hollow mask can be verified by empirical inspection i.e. by seeing and feeling the hollowness of the mask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs

This latest conversation reminds me of the exchange I had with Magsj in your "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" thread...

_
Grown people stating that the moon does not exist, if/when not seen.

Unbelievable!

Clearly, something associated with what we call "the moon" (something with mass circling the earth) exists. Otherwise, how would you explain the ocean tides?

I mean, does VA actually believe that if for an entire week, no conscious beings on earth looked out into space to see the moon, then there would not have been any high or low tides for 7 days?

The 3D-Mask Illusion has zero correlation with this discussion, as that is a brain/optic dichotomy and not a thought-experiment one.

Well, in coming to VA's defense (something I rarely do), it does seem to be related to the possible "observer effect" in quantum theory. Therefore, I wouldn't say it has "zero" correlation to the discussion.

That being said, what VA cannot seem to understand is that before you can have an illusion such as this,...



...there needs to be the presence of some sort of pre-existing, highly organized substance (or system) in place from which the illusion can then manifest.

In other words, he seems to be implying that both the moon, and the illusion created by the rotating mask, spring-forth out of pure nothingness whenever we look.

And that is nonsense.

And I suggest that it is "nonsense" in a way that is similar to Kant's insistence that if we were to believe such a thing, then we would be...

"...landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

And in regard to your claim of only schizophrenics being able to recognize the mask illusion, you are simply confirming my suggestion (in an alternate thread) that the brains of "normal" humans have been programmed (via evolution) not to recognize the illusory nature of reality,...

...and that circumstances such as schizophrenia, or strokes, or the use of entheogenic substances, etc., are what allow humans to escape the evolutionary programming and thus notice that reality is indeed an illusion - even to the point of having visions of a "real" transcendent intelligence who is responsible for the creation of the illusion.

In other words, I find it rather ironic that in this thread you are suggesting that humans with a specific brain problem (schizophrenia) are able to see that objective reality is actually an illusion (which, btw, is true, and something of which I have been asserting for decades),...

...while in other threads you insist that brain malfunctions, whether it be from some sort of damage, or the use of hallucinogenic substances, or whatever, is a "problem" because it causes one to stray beyond the bounds of their evolutionary programming.

So, which is it, V?

Is it good for a human to see that reality is an illusion, or is it a bad thing?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

After a nice little exchange with FJ, it seems to me that if VA's antirealism is the case, then
there is no right answer.
If there is no thing in itself,
then both reactions are correct.

There's no mask in itself that we can check to find out who is right.

Both the schizophenics and the majority are correct. I mean, how could they not be?

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

So, you are accepting that both are right?
Otherwise we have competing FSKs. In fact, that's where we are. Competing FSKs. And how could an antirealist say the majority are wrong about the mask. That's assuming a thing in itself.

Yes, both are right and objective, but there is the degree of objectivity as I had discussed elsewhere.
From the perspective of 'hallucination' what normal people 'hallucinate', their claims can be verified via the scientific FSK as the standard objectivity.
On the other hand what the schizo hallucinates has low or negligible objectivity.

First, there is a physical mask [M],
1. Philosophical realists [PRs] claim that mask [mask-in-itself] is absolute mind-independent.

2. The ANTI-philosophical_realist rejects the philosophical-realist's claim [1] since the PRs cannot prove their positive claim. To the ANTI-PR, there is no such thing as a mask-in-itself, i.e. it is an illusion. [ref: Hume's Treatise and Kant CPR]

Second,
the ANTI-philosophical realist [me] is using the mask [not mask-in-itself] to demonstrate what is perceived cannot be absolutely mind-independent, because what is perceived as 'real' [concave appearing convex] require human interaction.

As such, what is claimed to be 'real' by philosophical realists with the rest of reality is merely pseudo real and cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And let's remember:
months back I gave the scenario of a room with a box. Different people enter the room and, in realism, they find the same object in the box.

VA argued that it was not the same object or we couldn't know if it was. Well, if we can't know if it was the same object, then we can't know if it is the same mask/sculpture.

Any attempt to decide and declare that the object is a mask or is 3d is realism. It is attempting to/claiming to find out what is there real object behind the appearances.

And we can head to VA's thread on appearances to find out that those are all that exist.

In this particular case,
what is behind the appearances [illusions] [convex from concave] is another level of appearances [concave] of a real physical mask.
Philosophical realists [PRs] claim there is a mask-in-itself which is absolutely mind-independent while ANTI-PR reject such a claim, since it is not proven by PRs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

Those who claim there is an independent apple-on-the-table out there is absolutely and very real in itself independent of the human condition is delusional, i.e. being ignorant that apple is actually an illusion [like the hollow-mask appearing solid 3D].

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

Your point is that philosophical realists are like those bad guys over there. There is no reasoning, no arguments, whatsoever in your post. Your entire post is basically "See how wrong these guys are? Well, that's how wrong philosophical realists are!" It's a very hollow post.

I have critiqued Philosophical Realism in many threads;

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Philosophical Realism is a [likely] Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

When you insist upon philosophical realism as an ideology without compromise, you are merely banking on primal and primitive thinking reifying illusions as real as driven by an intense psychological drive to do so; in a way that is mass delusion.
You need to explore the evolutionary and psychological mechanisms to understand why philosophical realists are so dogmatic with their beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism claims that reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme they exists even if there are no humans.

Can you define the term "mind-independent"? What does it mean for something to be mind-independent?

Note,

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

Another view of mind-independent is perception-independent.

At the extreme of mind-independence it means reality and things [e.g. the moon] will exist even if there are no humans [no human minds] to interact with them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The thread is basically an insult. It should have been a private message.

Precisely. And he should stop referencing Peter Holmes every chance he gets.

Since you joined only recently,
my main focus is on PH's 582 pages thread
which theme argues Morality is not objective
viewtopic.php?t=24601

PH argues that morality cannot be objective because ALL moral elements are not mind-independent which takes a philosophical realist's stance.
That is why I regularly refer to PH directing attention to the above thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This all makes sense... in the pre-technological era. Where the only perspectives were your's and mine. Now there is also the perspective of human made detectors, who can perceive 1) without psychological and behavioral biases and 2) in finer and more varied detail than you or I.

Thus the ability to make observations independent of human limitations is possible (and has been possible for quite a while).

You missed my main point.

The above hollow mask illusion that is universal with all humans is a demonstration of the possibility that such an effect could be happening to what you perceived as 'real' in the normal sense.
As such, the table you [if you are a p-realist] perceived as real and as absolutely mind-independent could be an illusion at another level but you are ignorant of it.

Bertrand Russell raised the doubt, perhaps there is no table at all [while at the same time seeing a table out there]
Hume and Kant had demonstrated what [reality & things] the philosophical realists claimed as real and as absolutely mind-independent is actually a reified illusion.

What philosophical realists claimed as real and absolutely mind-independent is driven psychologically; as Hume stated it is due to constant conjunction, customs and habits.

Kant alluded to the psychological grounding within the philosophical realists claim, i.e.

• Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
  CPR B397

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I suggest that it is "nonsense" in a way that is similar to Kant's insistence that if we were to believe such a thing, then we would be...

"...landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

I have addressed your ignorance of the above in this thread.
Kant: Absurd -Appearance without anything that Appears
viewtopic.php?t=40828

Don't talk about Kant until you have read the CPR more that 20 times, preferable up to 50 times.

And in regard to your claim of only schizophrenics being able to recognize the mask illusion, you are simply confirming my suggestion (in an alternate thread) that the brains of "normal" humans have been programmed (via evolution) not to recognize the illusory nature of reality,...

Strawman.
I did not state "only" ..
I stated all [unless there are severe damage to the necessary parts] humans are effected by the mask illusion.

Is it good for a human to see that reality is an illusion, or is it a bad thing?

It is a good thing for a human to see that reality is an illusion as one alternative perspective but not all perspectives.
However it is delusional for a human [like yourself] to insist there is an ultimate mind-independent entity [your eye-thingy] behind those perspectives [illusion and otherwise]; that is the mother of all illusions.

Btw, I will use my discretion to ignore your post as long as you continue to throw all sort of 'put downs', silly remarks and getting too emotional. Why the need for all these other than is driven by some personal psychology?
I don't mind if you critique or condemn my intelligence and philosophical knowledge with justifications.

[seeds]

After a nice little exchange with FJ, it seems to me that if VA's antirealism is the case, then
there is no right answer.
If there is no thing in itself,
then both reactions are correct.

There's no mask in itself that we can check to find out who is right.

Both the schizophenics and the majority are correct. I mean, how could they not be?

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

So, you are accepting that both are right?
Otherwise we have competing FSKs. In fact, that's where we are. Competing FSKs. And how could an antirealist say the majority are wrong about the mask. That's assuming a thing in itself.

You and VA are a real hoot!

In the last few days, you both basically swore that you were going to ignore each other and not respond to each other's posts, then the comedic voice with the French accent pipes-in with...



...and you are now talking to each other like an old married couple who - due to senility - completely forgot about last night's quarrel.

Oh well, that's okay.

Seeing how we are all just a bunch of knuckleheads having some fun here, we should never take ourselves too seriously, right?
_______