Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Atla]

Are there scientific facts that can be seen as inconsistent with indirect realism?

Indirect realism is the philosophical position that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through a series of intermediaries (such as sensory data or mental representations). This theory posits a distinction between the way the world is and the way it appears to us.

Several scientific facts and theories can be seen as challenging or providing a nuanced view of indirect realism. Here are some of them:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:
In quantum mechanics, the act of observation can affect the state of a quantum system. This observer effect suggests that the boundary between the observer and the observed is not as clear-cut as indirect realism might imply. If observation alters the state of what is observed, the idea of a separate, independent reality becomes more complex.

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

(And even if QM turns out to be observer-dependent which may or may not be the case, the QM-observer could be something wildly different than the human mind.)

Where is your references to support the following;

Atla: Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

According to the above, "the external world as it really is" imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.
Any indication it is not above, imply direct realism and antirealism.

Indirect realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Where does it imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation? Sounds like a dumb dualistic variant of indirect realism.

[Atla]

Indirect realism is the philosophical position that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through a series of intermediaries (such as sensory data or mental representations). This theory posits a distinction between the way the world is and the way it appears to us.

Several scientific facts and theories can be seen as challenging or providing a nuanced view of indirect realism. Here are some of them:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:
In quantum mechanics, the act of observation can affect the state of a quantum system. This observer effect suggests that the boundary between the observer and the observed is not as clear-cut as indirect realism might imply. If observation alters the state of what is observed, the idea of a separate, independent reality becomes more complex.

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

(And even if QM turns out to be observer-dependent which may or may not be the case, the QM-observer could be something wildly different than the human mind.)

And I even have a third issue with 1. Namely that the Observer effect from QM does in fact suggest a more clear-cut differentiation between observer and observed, so the argument is not just a strawman but also backwards.

Wait, I have a fourth issue.. which QM Observer effect? There are two.

Expected better from God..

[Gary Childress]

I'm not sure what I am, "realist" or "anti-realist" or "indirect realist", All I know is that I have limits in the world and they are real limits to the best of my reckoning. I don't know what the world is "in itself" without me looking at it, touching it or smelling it etc., however, taking into account that I may be incorrect in every perception I have, I will proceed with the assumption that my limitations are real.

The above is my manifesto. I've always wanted to produce one.

[Atla]

Are there scientific facts that can be seen as inconsistent with indirect realism?

Indirect realism is the philosophical position that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through a series of intermediaries (such as sensory data or mental representations). This theory posits a distinction between the way the world is and the way it appears to us.

Several scientific facts and theories can be seen as challenging or providing a nuanced view of indirect realism. Here are some of them:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:
In quantum mechanics, the act of observation can affect the state of a quantum system. This observer effect suggests that the boundary between the observer and the observed is not as clear-cut as indirect realism might imply. If observation alters the state of what is observed, the idea of a separate, independent reality becomes more complex.

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

(And even if QM turns out to be observer-dependent which may or may not be the case, the QM-observer could be something wildly different than the human mind.)

Where is your references to support the following;

Atla: Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

According to the above, "the external world as it really is" imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.
Any indication it is not above, imply direct realism and antirealism.

Indirect realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Okay I suppose those coming from a more philosophical perspective are more likely to associate indirect realism with dualism. One of its names is epistemological dualism. Once again, it could be Kant's bad influence at work here, who set up the noumena-phenomena dualism, and it's easy to see this noumena-phenomena dualism as fundamental, and then project this idea of fundamental dualism onto indirect realism.

Except not only is that not required, but quite irrational from a more scientific perspective. The inside of our brains/minds seems to be made of the same kind of stuff as the external world, just arranged differently. Our brains/minds are continuous with the external world. No fundamental duality here.

Except you also claim that science is the most credible so you'll have to accept the latter view.

[seeds]

I'm kinda hoping that someone can bring up a substantial objection to indirect realism.

I certainly can't.

I suggest that the only situation in which "indirect realism" is not in play in our everyday lives here on earth is when we experience our own inner thoughts and dreams. For that is when we encounter "direct" realism.
_______

We always "directly" experience our own minds,...

Agreed.

Hence why I referred to it as "direct realism."

It is direct because when we encounter the phenomenal features of our own thoughts and dreams, our experience of them is not being filtered through any intermediary structures such as physical eyes, skin, ears, nose, or tongue,...

...all of which are simply "windows" that function as an "interface" that allows us to peer out from the inner dimension of our mind and into the outer dimension of the universe.

we are part of them too.

Of course we are a part of them. They (our minds) are an integral part of our overall being, for they function as the living "arena" in which we construct our own personal reality.

When we are awake the contents of our minds are largely constructed from external input, and when we dream from internal input.

Agreed.

However, it is important to note that whether or not it is being influenced by "external input" or "internal input," the contents of our mind (the phenomenal features of our thoughts and dreams) are constructed from the living fabric of our very own being.

Sometimes I'm quite conscious when the switching between the two modes happens.

That may be so, but for most people, the switching back and forth between those two modes...

(more specifically, the switching from full-blown awareness of the outer dimension of the universe while awake, to that of the full-blown awareness of your dreams when you fall asleep)

...always entails that the "mode" you switched away from pretty much vanishes from your awareness.

In other words, when you direct your consciousness inward, it explicates the phenomenal features of your dreams into existence from the fields of information that underpin (code for) their reality,...

...which means you are no longer explicating the features of the universe into existence from similar fields of information, and thus you are no longer aware of the "reality" of the universe.

And it's vice versa with respect to your dreams when you direct your consciousness outward while awake. When you awaken from sleep, your consciousness is directed back out through the body's five sensory "windows" and outward into the universe, and thus you are no longer aware of the vivid reality of your dreams.

Also note that when you do direct your full consciousness (your full attention) inward while asleep and dreaming, the contents of your mind appear to be "almost as real" as the contents of the universe.

I'll stop there, because I don't want to bore you with my theory of what all of this implies.

(My goodness, the truth of reality is so freakin' obvious if only you heathens would be more open minded about the existence of higher levels of consciousness above us. I mean, it is utterly ridiculous to believe that in all of eternity, humans represent the highest level that mind and consciousness have been able to reach. )
_______

[Impenitent]

is there an indirect escalator to take us to heaven?

I'm sure we'd have the staircase evolve by now...

-Imp

[Atla]

I certainly can't.

I suggest that the only situation in which "indirect realism" is not in play in our everyday lives here on earth is when we experience our own inner thoughts and dreams. For that is when we encounter "direct" realism.
_______

We always "directly" experience our own minds,...

Agreed.

Hence why I referred to it as "direct realism."

It is direct because when we encounter the phenomenal features of our own thoughts and dreams, our experience of them is not being filtered through any intermediary structures such as physical eyes, skin, ears, nose, or tongue,...

...all of which are simply "windows" that function as an "interface" that allows us to peer out from the inner dimension of our mind and into the outer dimension of the universe.

we are part of them too.

Of course we are a part of them. They (our minds) are an integral part of our overall being, for they function as the living "arena" in which we construct our own personal reality.

When we are awake the contents of our minds are largely constructed from external input, and when we dream from internal input.

Agreed.

However, it is important to note that whether or not it is being influenced by "external input" or "internal input," the contents of our mind (the phenomenal features of our thoughts and dreams) are constructed from the living fabric of our very own being.

Sometimes I'm quite conscious when the switching between the two modes happens.

That may be so, but for most people, the switching back and forth between those two modes...

(more specifically, the switching from full-blown awareness of the outer dimension of the universe while awake, to that of the full-blown awareness of your dreams when you fall asleep)

...always entails that the "mode" you switched away from pretty much vanishes from your awareness.

In other words, when you direct your consciousness inward, it explicates the phenomenal features of your dreams into existence from the fields of information that underpin (code for) their reality,...

...which means you are no longer explicating the features of the universe into existence from similar fields of information, and thus you are no longer aware of the "reality" of the universe.

And it's vice versa with respect to your dreams when you direct your consciousness outward while awake. When you awaken from sleep, your consciousness is directed back out through the body's five sensory "windows" and outward into the universe, and thus you are no longer aware of the vivid reality of your dreams.

Also note that when you do direct your full consciousness (your full attention) inward while asleep and dreaming, the contents of your mind appear to be "almost as real" as the contents of the universe.

I'll stop there, because I don't want to bore you with my theory of what all of this implies.

(My goodness, the truth of reality is so freakin' obvious if only you heathens would be more open minded about the existence of higher levels of consciousness above us. I mean, it is utterly ridiculous to believe that in all of eternity, humans represent the highest level that mind and consciousness have been able to reach. )
_______

Well you know where I stand and that you don't like it. Our minds aren't an "integral part of our overall being, for they function as the living "arena" in which we construct our own personal reality". Instead we literally are our minds or rather a part of it. Our minds are only an integral part of our overall being in the sense that they are parts of the whole human bodies.

Because of that, the switching between the two modes isn't always perfect so the mind doesn't always explicate content from just one mode, mixing the two contents which can be a big problem.

We don't have an additional consciousness that "explicates the phenomenal features of your dreams into existence from the fields of information that underpin (code for) their reality". There are no underlying fields of information in the universe, that's just a confused double vision, coming from banking on a certain interpretation of QM.

And while it's freaking obvious that in an infinite world we aren't the highest form of consciousness, it's also freaking obvious that that doesn't mean that we aren't the highest form of consciousness here. That's just your perpetual wishful thinking supported by psychedelic trips to find a higher consciousness here, even though there doesn't seem to be any. Unless you can show that there is indeed a higher consciousness here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not sure what I am, "realist" or "anti-realist" or "indirect realist", All I know is that I have limits in the world and they are real limits to the best of my reckoning. I don't know what the world is "in itself" without me looking at it, touching it or smelling it etc., however, taking into account that I may be incorrect in every perception I have, I will proceed with the assumption that my limitations are real.

The above is my manifesto. I've always wanted to produce one.

"Not sure" with acknowledge of real human fallibility is the most effective pragmatic step.
Thus it is wise to suspend judgment [not easy for the majority].
When one suspend judgment, one will be open to the opportunity to explore both sides more seriously.
Thereafter, if you ever decide to incline to one of the opposite view, at least you had done so after serious rational scrutiny of ALL the pros and cons of both sides.

Suspend of judgment is a critical philosophical issue:

Philosophical skepticism is one important form of skepticism. It rejects knowledge claims that seem certain from the perspective of common sense. Radical forms of philosophical skepticism deny that "knowledge or rational belief is possible" and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about nonempirical matters, such as whether God exists, whether human beings have free will, or whether there is an afterlife. In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

The philosophical realists [secular and theists] hastily jumped to conclusion on the question of the ultimate and clung to philosophical realism dogmatically as an ideology as driven by an evolutionary default.
Actually, philosophically realists will have to go through some sort of cold-turkey before the recognize [not agree] the anti-realists "realistic" reasonable views.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

(And even if QM turns out to be observer-dependent which may or may not be the case, the QM-observer could be something wildly different than the human mind.)

Where is your references to support the following;

Atla: Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

According to the above, "the external world as it really is" imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.
Any indication it is not above, imply direct realism and antirealism.

Indirect realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Where does it imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation? Sounds like a dumb dualistic variant of indirect realism.

Indirect Realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
An indirect realist will claim the moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
This imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.

Otherwise, if there is a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation, then the moon do exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
Thus if there is no humans there is no moon.

I have given this 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."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

The above imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation,
but Jim Al-Khalili is a hardcore philosophical realists [likely indirect realist], so he stated personally he somewhat cannot accept it even though his professional statue told his on the truth conditioned upon the science Physics FSK.

This is where Kant had warned:

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. B397

The above is what happened to Jim Al-Khalili and others in a similar situations where he could not free himself from the illusion [insisting the moon is real regardless of humans] even in this case, the rational truth is staring in his face.

That is why I argued the problem is not epistemology but rather psychological.

Philosophical realists (indirect realists) are so terrified of the psychological terror in letting go of their indirect realism re an absolutely independent moon that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not].

ChatGpt is giving answers that are not influenced by human psychology.

It is about time you recognize you are a fallible human beings and think deeply of your position as an indirect realists in the absolute, dogmatic and ideological sense.

[Atla]

Indirect Realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
An indirect realist will claim the moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
This imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.

Where? Why?

Otherwise, if there is a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation, then the moon do exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
Thus if there is no humans there is no moon.

English please.

I have given this 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."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
The above imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation,
but Jim Al-Khalili is a hardcore philosophical realists [likely indirect realist], so he stated personally he somewhat cannot accept it even though his professional statue told his on the truth conditioned upon the science Physics FSK.

This is where Kant had warned:
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. B397
The above is what happened to Jim Al-Khalili and others in a similar situations where he could not free himself from the illusion [insisting the moon is real regardless of humans] even in this case, the rational truth is staring in his face.

That is why I argued the problem is not epistemology but rather psychological.

Philosophical realists (indirect realists) are so terrified of the psychological terror in letting go of their indirect realism re an absolutely independent moon that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not].

ChatGpt is giving answers that are not influenced by human psychology.

It is about time you recognize you are a fallible human beings and think deeply of your position as an indirect realists in the absolute, dogmatic and ideological sense.

This is not an example, but a QM interpretation that's neither fact nor necessarily related to indirect realism. How many more times will you bring up this lie you dishonest piece of shit? And stop insulting Al-Khalili.

[FlashDangerpants]

ChatGpt is giving answers that are not influenced by human psychology.

It is literally an engine for predicting exactly what text you desire to read and then fulfilling your desire. It will invent an imaginary philosopher or book if it predicts that is the most likely way to make you feel better.

[Atla]

ChatGpt is giving answers that are not influenced by human psychology.

It is literally an engine for predicting exactly what text you desire to read and then fulfilling your desire. It will invent an imaginary philosopher or book if it predicts that is the most likely way to make you feel better.

Most of the time it does give an unbiased answer which is the best way to make VA realize that he's wrong. For example:

The idea that "the Moon isn't there when we aren't looking" is a philosophical interpretation rather than a scientific fact within the framework of quantum mechanics (QM). This notion is often attributed to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that physical systems generally do not have definite properties until they are measured.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant concepts:

1. **Quantum Mechanics and Measurement**: Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of particles at microscopic scales. According to the theory, particles exist in a superposition of states until a measurement is made. Upon measurement, the wavefunction collapses to a specific state.

2. **Copenhagen Interpretation**: One of the most well-known interpretations of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation suggests that the properties of quantum systems are not well-defined until they are observed. This leads to the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, where a cat in a box can be considered both alive and dead until the box is opened and an observation is made.

3. **Macroscopic Objects**: The statement about the Moon reflects an extrapolation of quantum mechanical principles to macroscopic objects. However, the behavior of macroscopic objects like the Moon is governed by classical physics, where such objects have definite properties regardless of observation. Quantum decoherence explains why we don't observe quantum effects at macroscopic scales—the interactions with the environment cause the superposition states to effectively collapse into definite states.

4. **Philosophical Debate**: The statement "the Moon isn't there when we aren't looking" raises questions about the nature of reality and observation. Philosophers and physicists have debated the implications of quantum mechanics on reality, but this remains in the realm of interpretation and philosophy rather than empirical scientific fact.

5. **Scientific Facts**: In science, facts are established through empirical evidence and reproducible experiments. The existence of the Moon when not being observed is a scientific fact supported by vast amounts of observational and theoretical evidence from classical mechanics and astronomy.

In summary, while quantum mechanics does introduce fascinating questions about observation and reality, the idea that the Moon isn't there when we aren't looking is a philosophical interpretation and not a scientific fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indirect Realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
An indirect realist will claim the moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
This imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.

Where? Why?

Otherwise, if there is a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation, then the moon do exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
Thus if there is no humans there is no moon.

English please.

So which is yours? 1 or 2,
1. he moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
2. if there are no human, then is no moon [FSERC].

if not, what is your indirect realist view re whether the moon existed regardless of whether there are human or not.

I have given this 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."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
The above imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation,
but Jim Al-Khalili is a hardcore philosophical realists [likely indirect realist], so he stated personally he somewhat cannot accept it even though his professional statue told his on the truth conditioned upon the science Physics FSK.

This is where Kant had warned:
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. B397
The above is what happened to Jim Al-Khalili and others in a similar situations where he could not free himself from the illusion [insisting the moon is real regardless of humans] even in this case, the rational truth is staring in his face.

That is why I argued the problem is not epistemology but rather psychological.

Philosophical realists (indirect realists) are so terrified of the psychological terror in letting go of their indirect realism re an absolutely independent moon that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not].

ChatGpt is giving answers that are not influenced by human psychology.

It is about time you recognize you are a fallible human beings and think deeply of your position as an indirect realists in the absolute, dogmatic and ideological sense.

This is not an example, but a QM interpretation that's neither fact nor necessarily related to indirect realism. How many more times will you bring up this lie you dishonest piece of shit? And stop insulting Al-Khalili.

Did you watch the video?
Tell me where I am wrong about Al-Khalili.

Explain your indirect realist position, QM or otherwise,

why there is no "clear cut boundary and fundamental separation" between the indirect realist and the 'tree out there".

[Atla]

Indirect Realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
An indirect realist will claim the moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
This imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.

Where? Why?

Otherwise, if there is a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation, then the moon do exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
Thus if there is no humans there is no moon.

English please.

So which is yours? 1 or 2,
1. he moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
2. if there are no human, then is no moon [FSERC].

if not, what is your indirect realist view re whether the moon existed regardless of whether there are human or not.

I have given this 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."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
The above imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation,
but Jim Al-Khalili is a hardcore philosophical realists [likely indirect realist], so he stated personally he somewhat cannot accept it even though his professional statue told his on the truth conditioned upon the science Physics FSK.

This is where Kant had warned:
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. B397
The above is what happened to Jim Al-Khalili and others in a similar situations where he could not free himself from the illusion [insisting the moon is real regardless of humans] even in this case, the rational truth is staring in his face.

That is why I argued the problem is not epistemology but rather psychological.

Philosophical realists (indirect realists) are so terrified of the psychological terror in letting go of their indirect realism re an absolutely independent moon that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not].

ChatGpt is giving answers that are not influenced by human psychology.

It is about time you recognize you are a fallible human beings and think deeply of your position as an indirect realists in the absolute, dogmatic and ideological sense.

This is not an example, but a QM interpretation that's neither fact nor necessarily related to indirect realism. How many more times will you bring up this lie you dishonest piece of shit? And stop insulting Al-Khalili.

Did you watch the video?
Tell me where I am wrong about Al-Khalili.

Explain your indirect realist position, QM or otherwise,

why there is no "clear cut boundary and fundamental separation" between the indirect realist and the 'tree out there".

Already explained multiple times. Last time on this page of this topic. And most of it is not "my" position but "the" position. Also, you did not watch that video.

[Veritas Aequitas]

[Did you watch the video?
Tell me where I am wrong about Al-Khalili.

Explain your indirect realist position, QM or otherwise,

why there is no "clear cut boundary and fundamental separation" between the indirect realist and the 'tree out there".

Already explained multiple times. Last time on this page of this topic. And most of it is not "my" position but "the" position. Also, you did not watch that video.

Since this is a critical point, if it not too troublesome why not explain again,

Explain your indirect realist position, QM or otherwise,
why there is no "clear cut boundary and fundamental separation" between the indirect realist and the 'tree out there".

Do you agree with
the moon exists regardless of whether there are humans or not?
i.e. the moon was there before humans and will be there even if humans are extinct.