Do we create reality with our mind?

[Flannel Jesus]

What is critical here is her conclusion "We can strictly speaking not rule it out" rather than many who insisted 'no way'.

That's not saying much, we can't strictly speaking rule almost anything out, including pure Solipsism, brain in a vat, the existence of orcs, and so on. You chose a very strange argument if you meant to SUPPORT your conclusions. "We can't strictly rule it out" is not really much support lmao.

The purpose of this thread is to show that there are signs the antirealist reality is breaking the p-realists dogmatic bubble.

What strike me was this:

• Do we create reality with our minds?
  I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
  You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
  But it’s not that simple.

That was a surprise coming from Sabine.
Generally as in the past and even now, the answer is a NO!!! period without any doubt at all to the above question. That was what Einstein insisted 'God does not play dice'.

In recent years the hardcore p-realists physicists are coming out of the hardcore bubble to admit some doubts to their fundamentalist belief and accept some possibility of the antirealist mind-related version of reality.

I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

Okay, well meanwhile the rest of us have noticed that the words you quoted from Sabine show that she isn't an anti realist and she thinks anti realism is useless. If that's what you count as "support" then.... power to you, I guess.

[Iwannaplato]

VA_ wrote
I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

Okay, well meanwhile the rest of us have noticed that the words you quoted from Sabine show that she isn't an anti realist and she thinks anti realism is useless. If that's what you count as "support" then.... power to you, I guess.

A small irony: the future he is talking about cannot be directly (or indirectly) seen by anyone at this point. So, it doesn't exist, especially for a strong metaphysical anti-realist like VA. I mean, even the Moon doesn't exist when we aren't looking at it. We can not look at anything that is referred to as the future. No one has ever seen this 'future' he is referring to. But nevertheless he talks about it as if it was real.

Let alone if he tried to integrate this realist talk with Kant's ideas of time as a mental construct.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's not saying much, we can't strictly speaking rule almost anything out, including pure Solipsism, brain in a vat, the existence of orcs, and so on. You chose a very strange argument if you meant to SUPPORT your conclusions. "We can't strictly rule it out" is not really much support lmao.

The purpose of this thread is to show that there are signs the antirealist reality is breaking the p-realists dogmatic bubble.

What strike me was this:

• Do we create reality with our minds?
  I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
  You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
  But it’s not that simple.

That was a surprise coming from Sabine.
Generally as in the past and even now, the answer is a NO!!! period without any doubt at all to the above question. That was what Einstein insisted 'God does not play dice'.

In recent years the hardcore p-realists physicists are coming out of the hardcore bubble to admit some doubts to their fundamentalist belief and accept some possibility of the antirealist mind-related version of reality.

I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

Okay, well meanwhile the rest of us have noticed that the words you quoted from Sabine show that she isn't an anti realist and she thinks anti realism is useless. If that's what you count as "support" then.... power to you, I guess.

Maybe she was 100% p-realist, that she concede to '"We can't strictly rule it out" indicate her 100% antirealist bubble is pierced to being 90% p-realist and 10% antirealist.
The purpose of the OP is to show the indications that many 100% p-realists are conceding, relenting and accepting antirealism [Kantian] is a possible reality and truth.

On the other hand Sabine is not like you a hardcore 100% p-realist. To each their own.

Another example

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Jim Al-Khalili imo is a 40% realist and 60% antirealist. The % is not so important, what is important is physicists are changing their beliefs and acknowledging the truth of antirealism [Kantian].

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA_ wrote
I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

Okay, well meanwhile the rest of us have noticed that the words you quoted from Sabine show that she isn't an anti realist and she thinks anti realism is useless. If that's what you count as "support" then.... power to you, I guess.

A small irony: the future he is talking about cannot be directly (or indirectly) seen by anyone at this point. So, it doesn't exist, especially for a strong metaphysical anti-realist like VA. I mean, even the Moon doesn't exist when we aren't looking at it. We can not look at anything that is referred to as the future. No one has ever seen this 'future' he is referring to. But nevertheless he talks about it as if it was real.

Let alone if he tried to integrate this realist talk with Kant's ideas of time as a mental construct.

So small minded and so silly given the knowledge we have at present.

The critical advantage of a scientific FSRK is its predictive power to predict the future with a degree [low to high] of certainty depending on the degree of credibility and objectivity of a specific FSRK.
If the moon is verified and justified as a scientific FSRK fact at present, then it has the potential to be an a scientific-FSRK-fact in the future.

[Flannel Jesus]

The purpose of the OP is to show the indications that many 100% p-realists are conceding, relenting and accepting antirealism [Kantian] is a possible reality and truth.

Sure, I've always accepted the small possibility that maybe Solipsism is true, maybe I'm a brain in a vat, etc. I don't need Sabine to tell me that.

[Atla]

Another example

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Jim Al-Khalili imo is a 40% realist and 60% antirealist. The % is not so important, what is important is physicists are changing their beliefs and acknowledging the truth of antirealism [Kantian].

I have a great respect for Professor Jim Al-Khalili, so could I please ask you to stop misrepresenting him already? You asshole.

Of course you wouldn't quote the 55:15-56:00 part from the same video (and of course the entire video went over your head):

While it's true that Einstein's dream of finding a reasonable commonsense explanation was shattered for good, my own personal view is that this doesn't necessarily banish physical reality. Like Einstein, I still believe there might be a more palpable explanation underlying the weird results of quantum mechanics. But one thing is clear. Whether there are physical spooky connections, whether there are parallel universes, whether we bring reality into existence by looking.. whatever the truth is, the weirdness of the quantum world won't go away, it will rear its ugly head somewhere.

You stil have no idea what QM interpretations even are. Al-Khalili's favourite interpretation is the Pilot Wave by the way. He's openly a realist like Einstein.

And EVEN the very anti-realist interpretations are arguably not Kantian anti-realisms. These are arguably two different kinds of anti-realisms that aren't compatible.

[Iwannaplato]

I have a great respect for Professor Jim Al-Khalili, so could I please ask you to stop misrepresenting him already? You asshole.

No, you don't understand. He sees Professor Jim Al-Khalili that his mind creates. Essentially he saw a different video than the one you saw.
It's the same with out posts. When you quote his posts and it seems like the posts are online and remain the same for all viewers, like even if you came back tomorrow, actually the sentences are different for each viewer. VA has a different past from you, different ideas, a different base culture, so when he comes to PN and reads a thread, he's not reading the same thread you are. 'Your Posts' don't say what they do in your world, because they have no reality without the experiencer and each experiencer creates their reality.

For all you know he's arguing about how to make a great lasagne while you're trying so hard to help him understand realism/antirealism.

For me the thread's about Manchester United.

There is no common thread.

[Atla]

I have a great respect for Professor Jim Al-Khalili, so could I please ask you to stop misrepresenting him already? You asshole.

No, you don't understand. He sees Professor Jim Al-Khalili that his mind creates. Essentially he saw a different video than the one you saw.
It's the same with out posts. When you quote his posts and it seems like the posts are online and remain the same for all viewers, like even if you came back tomorrow, actually the sentences are different for each viewer. VA has a different past from you, different ideas, a different base culture, so when he comes to PN and reads a thread, he's not reading the same thread you are. 'Your Posts' don't say what they do in your world, because they have no reality without the experiencer and each experiencer creates their reality.

For all you know he's arguing about how to make a great lasagne while you're trying so hard to help him understand realism/antirealism.

For me the thread's about Manchester United.

There is no common thread.

VA can be the lord emperor of his one-person universe for all I care, I just wish he could un-imagine his internet access.

[Iwannaplato]

I have a great respect for Professor Jim Al-Khalili, so could I please ask you to stop misrepresenting him already? You asshole.

No, you don't understand. He sees Professor Jim Al-Khalili that his mind creates. Essentially he saw a different video than the one you saw.
It's the same with out posts. When you quote his posts and it seems like the posts are online and remain the same for all viewers, like even if you came back tomorrow, actually the sentences are different for each viewer. VA has a different past from you, different ideas, a different base culture, so when he comes to PN and reads a thread, he's not reading the same thread you are. 'Your Posts' don't say what they do in your world, because they have no reality without the experiencer and each experiencer creates their reality.

For all you know he's arguing about how to make a great lasagne while you're trying so hard to help him understand realism/antirealism.

For me the thread's about Manchester United.

There is no common thread.

VA can be the lord emperor of his one-person universe for all I care, I just wish he could un-imagine his internet access.

You need to create your reality better. You can't unmake him, but you can certainly stop creating his posts. When I look at 'VA's' posts, all I see now are beautiful images of trees.

Many people, dirty realists, think that if we took 1,000 people from a variety of class and experience backgrounds and showed them VA's posts they would all see the same texts. But that's just silly realism.....
some would find texts about birds, some texts about rust removal....
there would be as many VAs as there are other minds.

[phyllo]

No, you don't understand. He sees Professor Jim Al-Khalili that his mind creates. Essentially he saw a different video than the one you saw.
It's the same with out posts. When you quote his posts and it seems like the posts are online and remain the same for all viewers, like even if you came back tomorrow, actually the sentences are different for each viewer. VA has a different past from you, different ideas, a different base culture, so when he comes to PN and reads a thread, he's not reading the same thread you are. 'Your Posts' don't say what they do in your world, because they have no reality without the experiencer and each experiencer creates their reality.

For all you know he's arguing about how to make a great lasagne while you're trying so hard to help him understand realism/antirealism.

For me the thread's about Manchester United.

There is no common thread.

VA can be the lord emperor of his one-person universe for all I care, I just wish he could un-imagine his internet access.

You need to create your reality better. You can't unmake him, but you can certainly stop creating his posts. When I look at 'VA's' posts, all I see now are beautiful images of trees.

Many people, dirty realists, think that if we took 1,000 people from a variety of class and experience backgrounds and showed them VA's posts they would all see the same texts. But that's just silly realism.....
some would find texts about birds, some texts about rust removal....
there would be as many VAs as there are other minds.

Well, he's right. Everybody is reading something slightly or very different.

It's not the difference between "birds" and "rust removal". But there is a difference in the meaning that each individual believes the words and sentences have.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, he's right. Everybody is reading something slightly or very different.

It's not the difference between "birds" and "rust removal". But there is a difference in the meaning that each individual believes the words and sentences have.

Sure, exactly. But the differences should be that big if we are as individuals creating reality.

[phyllo]

Well, he's right. Everybody is reading something slightly or very different.

It's not the difference between "birds" and "rust removal". But there is a difference in the meaning that each individual believes the words and sentences have.

Sure, exactly. But the differences should be that big if we are as individuals creating reality.

Since people have similar bodies, getting similar inputs and processing it in similar ways, one would conclude that the differences are not going to be enormous.

"Bird" has a range of meanings and interpretations. And "rust removal" falls far out of that range. Although you see jumps out of that range ... for example some comedy, or creative people, crazy people.

"I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I will never know."

[Iwannaplato]

Well, he's right. Everybody is reading something slightly or very different.

It's not the difference between "birds" and "rust removal". But there is a difference in the meaning that each individual believes the words and sentences have.

Sure, exactly. But the differences should be that big if we are as individuals creating reality.

Since people have similar bodies, getting similar inputs and processing it in similar ways, one would conclude that the differences are not going to be enormous.

"Bird" has a range of meanings and interpretations. And "rust removal" falls far out of that range. Although you see jumps out of that range ... for example some comedy, or creative people, crazy people.

"I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I will never know."

If we are each creating our realities, then when I log in to a philosophy forum, perhaps you Phyllo are logging in to a bird watching forum. Or you are posting about French Philosophy and I think you're writing about Dewey.

Yet we come back day after day and when you quote my posts or I quote yours we seem to be talking about the same things. Why do we keep creating the same topics.

It's the same issue I raised with VA a while ago. Put an object in a box and ask 1000 people to walk into an empty room other than the box. They s open it come out side and tell the scientist what the object in the box is and then each one of the thousand draws the object. Yes, there will be differences. And perhaps a Chinese person used to chopsticks won't even realize its for food. But there will be this unbelievable consistency to the answers and the drawing. Especially when you consider that it could have been anything. So, the metaphysical anti-realist needs to explain why there is the persistence of the thing in the box. People could come out and report they saw all sorts of things, each a thing that is familiar to them. Forks, sure maybe 1 or 2, but a ball, a hammer, a tooth, a kitten, salt, a bottle...and so on.

So, if we are really going to say we create reality, rather than interpret it through filters (iow the indirect realism idea), then the anti-realist needs to explain this unbelievable consistency over time.

I think there are possible explanations, but VA, for example, if he has one of these, has then to accept these explanations. I'm not going to say some of the ways I think this can be resolved, but they are very wild for most people.

[phyllo]

If we are each creating our realities, then when I log in to a philosophy forum, perhaps you Phyllo are logging in to a bird watching forum. Or you are posting about French Philosophy and I think you're writing about Dewey.

Yet we come back day after day and when you quote my posts or I quote yours we seem to be talking about the same things. Why do we keep creating the same topics.

It's the same issue I raised with VA a while ago. Put an object in a box and ask 1000 people to walk into an empty room other than the box. They s open it come out side and tell the scientist what the object in the box is and then each one of the thousand draws the object. Yes, there will be differences. And perhaps a Chinese person used to chopsticks won't even realize its for food. But there will be this unbelievable consistency to the answers and the drawing. Especially when you consider that it could have been anything. So, the metaphysical anti-realist needs to explain why there is the persistence of the thing in the box. People could come out and report they saw all sorts of things, each a thing that is familiar to them. Forks, sure maybe 1 or 2, but a ball, a hammer, a tooth, a kitten, salt, a bottle...and so on.

So, if we are really going to say we create reality, rather than interpret it through filters (iow the indirect realism idea), then the anti-realist needs to explain this unbelievable consistency over time.

I think there are possible explanations, but VA, for example, if he has one of these, has then to accept these explanations. I'm not going to say some of the ways I think this can be resolved, but they are very wild for most people.

I think there is a misconception about anti-realism, which is that it means that our minds fabricate a reality out of nothing.

That's not the case.

We are getting inputs to our senses and we process those to create a concept of what we believe exists.

For example, we may make some observation and draw the conclusion that object A exists.
However, the observations may be produced by objects B and C. There may be no object A at all.

[Skepdick]

If we are each creating our realities, then when I log in to a philosophy forum, perhaps you Phyllo are logging in to a bird watching forum. Or you are posting about French Philosophy and I think you're writing about Dewey.

Welcome to the consensus-reality. THE anti-reality.

So, if we are really going to say we create reality, rather than interpret it through filters (iow the indirect realism idea), then the anti-realist needs to explain this unbelievable consistency over time.

Carl Jung. Synchronicity. Meaningful coincidences.

We cease to disagree and that's all there is to it. We settle on a conception that doesn't upset too many people. There's nothing deeper. Nothing "comes closer to reality".