Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

From ChatGpt [wR] again;
Relative Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist independently of individual perceptions but are structured by the human mind's conditions of experience. This aligns with Kant's empirical realism and his Copernican Revolution.

Where do they exist independentIy of individuaI perceptions? What does exist mean in that sentence?

I have explained this before.

A relative empirical realist will perceive a tree out there in the garden which is independent [separate] of his body and so his brain/mind.

Note 'the oncoming train on the same track as one is standing on' example, it exists independent of individual's perception, such that the person will jump off the rail to avoid being smashed.

Exist means real, actual within common sense existence.

[Atla]

I never claimed philosophical realism is a subset of transcendental realism

And I never said or implied that you did.

it is the other way round.

Good you finally admit it. Hanging it out on the wall was worth it.

Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
-Philosophical Realism
-Indirect Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)

So as you can see Kant's critique of transcendental realism isn't enough against indirect realism.

[Atla]

From ChatGpt [wR] again;
Relative Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist independently of individual perceptions but are structured by the human mind's conditions of experience. This aligns with Kant's empirical realism and his Copernican Revolution.

Where do they exist independentIy of individuaI perceptions? What does exist mean in that sentence?

Wonder what the ontology of this Kantian transcendental idealism would look like. Perceptions just floating in a timeless, spaceless empty dark place? Picked up / created by /shaped by the mental faculties, which are also floating there? Does this philosophy even have any ontology?

[seeds]

From ChatGpt [wR] again;
Relative Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist independently of individual perceptions but are structured by the human mind's conditions of experience. This aligns with Kant's empirical realism and his Copernican Revolution.

Where do they exist independentIy of individuaI perceptions?

I suggest that if it is possible that Berkeley's (and my) vision of reality is true,...

(that the universe is indeed the mind of a higher consciousness)

...then the realities (the phenomenal features of the universe) that exist independently of our perceptions of those realities, exist (have their foundational being) within the mind of said higher consciousness.

Of course, that then begs the question of where, then, does this higher mind exist?

And the answer is that it exists in the context of "true reality," where living (incorporeal) beings exist in a state that is more or less an "inversion" of how living beings (like us) exist within the interior of this universe (again, a higher Being's mind).

In other words, in "true reality,"...

(which is metaphorically depicted in the illustration below)

...instead of minds being encapsulated in matter, matter (mental holography) is encapsulated in minds whose foundational essence is simply the essence of life itself, which is represented by this illustration I uploaded earlier...



The (blurry/slightly altered) captions read as follows:

"Just as soap bubbles are individual entities created from the same essence of soap, so are the bubbles of consciousness [i.e., universes/minds], individual entities, created from the same essence of life."

"The sum total of the essence of life and all of its subsequent "bubbles" represent the sum total of reality itself, beyond which nothing else exists."

"The bubbles are not contained within yet a bigger bubble as the "first cause" or the  "absolute" [or God] is oftentimes perceived.  There is no singular consciousness presiding over the rest.  The essence of life is a mutual partnership."

So many puzzling philosophical issues (even the mystery of quantum physics) can be instantly resolved if everyone would simply accept the Berkeleyan (and my) assertion of the universe being the mind of a higher Being.

What does exist mean in that sentence?

Regardless of how it is used in the sentence you are referring to, the word "exist" (or "exists") applies to anything that resides on the opposite side of "absolute nothingness."
_______

[Iwannaplato]

From ChatGpt [wR] again;
Relative Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist independently of individual perceptions but are structured by the human mind's conditions of experience. This aligns with Kant's empirical realism and his Copernican Revolution.

Where do they exist independentIy of individuaI perceptions? What does exist mean in that sentence?

I have explained this before.

A relative empirical realist will perceive a tree out there in the garden which is independent [separate] of his body and so his brain/mind.

Note 'the oncoming train on the same track as one is standing on' example, it exists independent of individual's perception, such that the person will jump off the rail to avoid being smashed.

Exist means real, actual within common sense existence.

But if no one is looking at the train??? Let's say it's an automated transfer train. No one in the collective is aware or perceiving it and you are foolishly walking down the tracks, you back to it, singing with headphones on? Are you safe?

[Atla]

I guess transcendental idealists are the only people who can get hit by trains that don't actually exist, they are just random illusions.

[Iwannaplato]

I guess transcendental idealists are the only people who can get hit by trains that don't actually exist, they are just random illusions.

Note 'the oncoming train on the same track as one is standing on' example, it exists independent of individual's perception, such that the person will jump off the rail to avoid being smashed.

This is not an expIanation or part of one. It's just an assertion.

But actuaIIy he shouId beIieve that person wouId not get run over.

Why would anyone die in bed, while sleeping aIone, of, say, carbon monoxide poisoning?

No one saw it, sensed it. How was it reaI?

[seeds]

Anyway, present your argument to the father of modern philosophy...

Not sure what is your point.
You ask me to show you which science has measured the "I-AM-ness".
I stated it is a non-starter for science to search for the "I-AM-ness" because it is an illusion in the first place.

Yes, and I, in turn, stated that the real reason it is a non-starter for science is because it (the "I Am-ness") is literally beyond the reach of their measuring devices.

Looking at one of my fanciful illustrations depicting people dreaming...



...do you actually think that there would be any way for scientists to reach into that dream of a tropical island paradise and literally see and measure the size of those palm trees, along with their distance from the water?

Yet there it is (the island paradise), in distinct and vivid 3-D detail, existing in its own separate (and inaccessible) dimension of reality (inaccessible to everyone except the dreamer, that is).

And if you keep insisting that the dream and the dreamer of the dream are nothing more than illusions,...

...then you need to understand that according to certain interpretations of QM, the whole freakin' universe is nothing more than an illusion. A highly resolved and super-ordered illusion, for sure, but an illusion, nonetheless.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out so many times before,...

...if according to materialism and naïve realists (such as you and Atla) there is literally nothing else other than matter,...

...then that means that the infinitely malleable substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created, is simply an inward extension of the same infinitely malleable substance from which our bodies, brains, stars, and planets are created.

Which then leads to the unavoidable conclusion that if the human "I Am-ness"...

(within the inner context of our own minds, as depicted by the "eye-con" in my illustration)

...can willfully grasp the same funda-mental substance that forms our bodies, brains, stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish (just by “thinking It” into existence),...

...then why is it so hard to entertain, at least the "possibility," that a higher Being (a higher and more evolved "I AM-NESS" who is in possession of eternal life) has done precisely that,...

(willfully thought things into existence out of the living fabric of its own mind)

...as it, in some unfathomable time frame, has brought about the ordered phenomenal features of this universe?

I'm talking about a living (incorporeal) Being who has achieved such supreme control over the fabric of its own mind, that it has been able to replicate itself, along with its full range of capabilities, by conceiving its very own "offspring" (us) within itself.

As always, I simply cannot make this cosmic theory regarding the ultimate truth of our being, sound anymore "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than that,...

...for it implies that, "As Below, So Above," the highest species of Beings, at the highest level of reality, propagate their own kind in a way that resembles "mammalialism" here on earth (sans the horizontal mambo, of course ).

• "...Let us make man in our image..."

_______

[Atla]

...instead of minds being encapsulated in matter, matter (mental holography) is encapsulated in minds whose foundational essence is simply the essence of life itself

So many puzzling philosophical issues (even the mystery of quantum physics) can be instantly resolved if everyone would simply accept the Berkeleyan (and my) assertion of the universe being the mind of a higher Being.

Unless we know anything about QM, and know that the rather obvious idea of inversion is as sufficient at explaining it, as Age's metaphysics is sufficient for deriving the Standard model and improving on it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I never claimed philosophical realism is a subset of transcendental realism

And I never said or implied that you did.

it is the other way round.

Good you finally admit it. Hanging it out on the wall was worth it.

It has no benefits for you that transcendental realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
It is just like, genocide is a subset of human evil.

In this case, transcendental realism is a subset of philosophical realism which both are a subset of chasing illusions.

Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
-Philosophical Realism
-Indirect Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)

So as you can see Kant's critique of transcendental realism isn't enough against indirect realism.

In what sense?

Kant's critique of transcendental realism which is fundamentally the same as indirect realism is that both are grounded and chasing after an illusion.
Why are you so proud that your belief is grounded on an illusion, i.e. unreality?

ChatGpt agrees with 'there are two main class of realism' i.e.
1. Absolute - transcendental realism, indirect realism.
2. Relative - empirical realism

The absolute basis i.e. transcendental realism, indirect realism are critiqued by Kant as grounded on an illusion.
Kant demonstrated his relative basis of empirical realism is realistic empirically.

So, Indirect Realism is Not Realistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where do they exist independentIy of individuaI perceptions? What does exist mean in that sentence?

I have explained this before.

A relative empirical realist will perceive a tree out there in the garden which is independent [separate] of his body and so his brain/mind.

Note 'the oncoming train on the same track as one is standing on' example, it exists independent of individual's perception, such that the person will jump off the rail to avoid being smashed.

Exist means real, actual within common sense existence.

But if no one is looking at the train??? Let's say it's an automated transfer train. No one in the collective is aware or perceiving it and you are foolishly walking down the tracks, you back to it, singing with headphones on? Are you safe?

Above is off tangent.

It is about an "individual's perception".
When an individual, say me, sees an oncoming train [automated or with driver] on the same track I am standing on, I view the train as mind-independent, i.e. existing separated from as in common sense.
But I take this view of mind-independent as relative not as in the absolute sense.
If no one is looking at the train, in the relative sense, the train still exists within the common sense.
If X does not see [within his sight] the unplucked apple on the tree, within the relative mind-independent sense, common sense and conventional sense, the apple on the tree is still existing as real.

In the absolute sense, Y insist the noumenal apple [apple-in-itself] on the tree exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
This is more obvious with the example of a person. In the absolute sense, the person-in-itself, i.e. the soul-in-itself will exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
From the rational POV, the absolute sense of mind-independence by the philosophical realist is merely chasing an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I guess transcendental idealists are the only people who can get hit by trains that don't actually exist, they are just random illusions.

The above is a strawman.
You are not getting the point.

The transcendental idealist is also an empirical realist. [Kant A370].

A transcendental idealist aka empirical realist will see [from the relative sense] a real [actually exist] oncoming train on the same track he is standing on which is mind-independent; being rational he will jump off the track to avoid being smashed.

The mind-independent existence of empirical realism of the empirical realist is in the relative sense.

[Iwannaplato]

In this case, transcendental realism is a subset of philosophical realism which both are a subset of chasing illusions.

Nah. Someone is going camping with the family. They get a map or find a map online of the area in the forest they will be hiking. It has the trails laid out. In the evening before the hike, the parents sit with the kids and they look at the map. The father points in the direction they will walk tomorrow. Not on the map but points 'through' the tent where the small mountain is he was just showing them on the maps. AII four members of the famiIy have a schema in their minds that posits the natural area around them as present, around them, nearIy aII of it. The daughter questions his father: are there bears out there now. Sure, says the father. What are they doing now? Well, says the father, they are at least also nocturnaI and are foraging for food.

Sure, enough the next morning, they find fresh bear prints on a part of a path they had expIored the evening before. Fresh bear prints and scratches on a tree at the side of the path that were not there before. As the father predicted there is dew on the leaves even up in the forest leaves, even far up in the forest. It accumulated even though no one was watching it.

The antireaIist who camps in the same spot a week later has his own schema in his head. Regardless the family of realists has an elegant and extremely effective ontology: reaIism. They are not chasing illusions. They don't have to expIain why the maps work so well or how the dew arrived even though none of them, and no human, was there to witness this change. Nor why this happened long in the past, before humans understood dew point and radiational cooling. The father sensed the humidity the night before and realized there would be a lot of dew. This was correct, even the children noticed it was a heavy dew.

The persistent through time mapped schema of reality is extremely effective and also parsimonious. We do not need to explain how the forest is not there in the night and reappears in the morning. Or why it reappears much the same. Or why the dew processes during the night don't really happen, but when the forest reappears in the morning covered with dew after not existing in the night. Why there is the appearance of processes that actually didn't happen, but when the forest appears in the perception of humans, it appears as if it existed through the night. All things the radicaal antirealist believes are the case - and tends not to explain. No we're still lacking some specific schema for what is going on, for example, there in that chunk of forest, in your antirealist schema.

This doesn't prove realism, but you can cut the shit and stop all the negative judgments of realism and realists. It's an extremely effective model of reality. It's not some Cromagnon idiocy and you are not Future Man, bravely facing primitive assumptions. The only brave person here, daring to be ontologically different. And all the other pompous implied self-compliments in your posts, this one about 'chasing illusions' being one of the milder insults.

And note: when I say cut the shit and stop all the negative judgments of realism and realists, I am NOT saying that you should stop arguing for your particalar antirealism. I am saying stop insulting the people you disagree with in these generally aimed ad homs and insults. Every time you do it is looks both weak and rude. It is as if you don't trust your own reasoning enough, so you have to attack the personalities or lives of realists.

And if you want to say: I have said a million times that common sense is useful and I'd get out of the way of trains..... or any of the other not clear explanations for what you think is going on, you're missing the point of this post and you're a dogmatic antirealist, certainly to any instrumentalist or pragmatist, when you go on and on about things in themselves not existing. Doubling down on what is just yet another metaphysical position you also can't be sure of.

Even many realists will put an asterisk on the existence of noumena (perhaps not using that word). Epistemological humility at that level of abstraction is not an obstacle to knowledge. Practical coherence, coherence in generaI, intersubjective confirmation, persistance of features, the effectiveness of maps and models in prediction (causal efficacy), and even occam's razor arguments for the efficiency of realism make it a viable option, and one that is useful in nearly every context. That doesn't mean it's right, and it is a good topic and a good issue to challenge realism. And of course there are anti-realists who do not take your radical metaphysical stand and who manage to not put realism down in the ways you do. All your arguments are dependent on realists and then also on antirealists who treat realism with respect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyway, present your argument to the father of modern philosophy...

Not sure what is your point.
You ask me to show you which science has measured the "I-AM-ness".
I stated it is a non-starter for science to search for the "I-AM-ness" because it is an illusion in the first place.

Yes, and I, in turn, stated that the real reason it is a non-starter for science is because it (the "I Am-ness") is literally beyond the reach of their measuring devices.

I have argued:

What is reality, real, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality [FSER] which is subquently perceived, known and described [FSC], FSERC as a whole.

The scientific FSERC is the gold standard in terms of credibility and objectivity which all other FSERC must be compared to.
Why the Scientific FSERC is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

If your "I Am-ness") is a non-starter and beyond science, then it has no credibility and objectivity which could be unreal and illusory.

Looking at one of my fanciful illustrations depicting people dreaming...
....

Why the scientific is the most credible and objective is it is basically contingent upon a collective-of-subjects not on a subject.

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).

All your blah, blah, blah .. is solely dependent on your first-person experience.
Thus it is very subjective as defined above.
Subjective claims are never credible and obviously not objective.

It is waste of everybody's time with your blah, blah, blah re your "I Am-ness") unless you can present it on a objective basis, like or near the scientific FSERC which is the gold standard.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case, transcendental realism is a subset of philosophical realism which both are a subset of chasing illusions.

Nah. Someone is going camping with the family. They get a map or find a map online of the area in the forest they will be hiking. It has the trails laid out. In the evening before the hike, the parents sit with the kids and they look at the map. The father points in the direction they will walk tomorrow. Not on the map but points 'through' the tent where the small mountain is he was just showing them on the maps. AII four members of the famiIy have a schema in their minds that posits the natural area around them as present, around them, nearIy aII of it. The daughter questions his father: are there bears out there now. Sure, says the father. What are they doing now? Well, says the father, they are at least also nocturnaI and are foraging for food.

Sure, enough the next morning, they find fresh bear prints on a part of a path they had expIored the evening before. Fresh bear prints and scratches on a tree at the side of the path that were not there before. As the father predicted there is dew on the leaves even up in the forest leaves, even far up in the forest. It accumulated even though no one was watching it.

The antireaIist who camps in the same spot a week later has his own schema in his head. Regardless the family of realists has an elegant and extremely effective ontology: reaIism. They are not chasing illusions. They don't have to expIain why the maps work so well or how the dew arrived even though none of them, and no human, was there to witness this change. Nor why this happened long in the past, before humans understood dew point and radiational cooling. The father sensed the humidity the night before and realized there would be a lot of dew. This was correct, even the children noticed it was a heavy dew.

The persistent through time mapped schema of reality is extremely effective and also parsimonious. We do not need to explain how the forest is not there in the night and reappears in the morning. Or why it reappears much the same. Or why the dew processes during the night don't really happen, but when the forest reappears in the morning covered with dew after not existing in the night. Why there is the appearance of processes that actually didn't happen, but when the forest appears in the perception of humans, it appears as if it existed through the night. All things the radicaal antirealist believes are the case - and tends not to explain. No we're still lacking some specific schema for what is going on, for example, there in that chunk of forest, in your antirealist schema.

This doesn't prove realism, but you can cut the shit and stop all the negative judgments of realism and realists. It's an extremely effective model of reality. It's not some Cromagnon idiocy and you are not Future Man, bravely facing primitive assumptions. The only brave person here, daring to be ontologically different. And all the other pompous implied self-compliments in your posts, this one about 'chasing illusions' being one of the milder insults.

And note: when I say cut the shit and stop all the negative judgments of realism and realists, I am NOT saying that you should stop arguing for your particalar antirealism. I am saying stop insulting the people you disagree with in these generally aimed ad homs and insults. Every time you do it is looks both weak and rude. It is as if you don't trust your own reasoning enough, so you have to attack the personalities or lives of realists.

And if you want to say: I have said a million times that common sense is useful and I'd get out of the way of trains..... or any of the other not clear explanations for what you think is going on, you're missing the point of this post and you're a dogmatic antirealist, certainly to any instrumentalist or pragmatist, when you go on and on about things in themselves not existing. Doubling down on what is just yet another metaphysical position you also can't be sure of.

I am not too sure of your point above, in particular you are insisting I an 'antirealist' without qualifications.

I have explained in detail, there are two categories of realism [mind-independent], .i.e.
1. Realism in the absolute sense - philosophical realism
2. Realism in the relative sense -empirical realist.

I claimed I am realist as an empirical realist i.e. realism in the relative sense.
Thus to keep stating I am 'antirealist' without qualification and arguing from it is a strawman.

If I [as empirical realist] go camping on the same spot as the first family, I will believe exactly the sort of mind-independent sense as they do if expressed from the common and conventional sense.

But if the father were to put on his philosophical realism hat and tell his family there is a mind-independent noumenal tree existing as real but not knowable [based on his inferences and belief], then I will not agree with him as an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist.

In the above example, you did not state the father made any philosophical realist's claim about the campsite, so there is nothing I disagree.

You sounded very arrogant based on ignorance.