Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Iwannaplato]

And let's be clear. I used a kind of every day situation, but that camping scenario works as a model for nearly all situations, including nearly all scientific work - even if antirealist models can also work in many fields. It's not just while doing errands or hanging out with the family or jumping off train tracks that realist models work. The entire maps and models work because reality persists out there approach works nearly everywhere. It is not mere chasing illusions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And let's be clear. I used a kind of every day situation, but that camping scenario works as a model for nearly all situations, including nearly all scientific work - even if antirealist models can also work in many fields. It's not just while doing errands or hanging out with the family or jumping off train tracks that realist models work. The entire maps and models work because reality persists out there approach works nearly everywhere. It is not mere chasing illusions.

You are not on point on the issue.

If both my family and the other family were camping side by side and we saw a hungry angry looking bear, both our families will run for cover [a secure hut nearby] because there is a real dangerous bear out there.

But if the father [wearing his philosophical hat] were to turn to me and insist there is an absolutely mind-independent noumenal bear out there [based on philosophical realism & indirect realism], I will surely disagree.
To me as an empirical realist, there is only a relatively mind-independent bear out there which can be verified and justified empirical via the science-biology FSERC.

That's it, I am not sure what's your intended point?

[seeds]

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.

What I say to Veritas...

• "...Okay, Veritas, because you do not realize that you are sleepwalking through life, then the more passionate and articulate you are in presenting your materialistic vision of reality, then the more you demonstrate...
  
  (in direct proportion to the degree in which you, Veritas, believe your assertions)
  
  ...the depth and degree of your somnambulism..."

What Veritas hears...

• "...blah, blah, Veritas, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,...
  
  (blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Veritas, blah, blah, blah)
  
  ...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..."

_______

[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.

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.

Stop lying VA. Transcendental realism may be chasing illusions but philosophical realism generally isn't. And Kant has nothing on indirect realism, or you haven't shown so far that he does. Read again what you hang up on the wall.

This for example is on your wall:

Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists).

[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.

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.

But you just explained again why what I said was correct.

[Atla]

infinitely malleable substance

What would seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable subtance even look like in practice?

Say we perfrom a double slit experiment, and to everyone's surprise we don't get two bands, but a kitten? A christmas tree? A plane? A star? Bonbons? Anything we want, because it's an infinitely malleable substance, so it turns into anything we want?

Unfortunately that's not exactly what the physicists have found.

And when it comes to dreams, do we have infinitely malleable dreams? We have fairly small heads, but an infinite amount of information can be packed into our dreams? If that were true I would have stopped time in my dream, to make that moment last for an eternity and never wake up, and then construct a fantasy world in my eternal dream, and live there as an immortal.

funda-mental

atto would be proud..

[Impenitent]

someone took my silly putty

-Imp

[seeds]

What would seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable subtance even look like in practice?

In case you forgot, Atla, we're on a "philosophy" forum.

And those of us who attempt to use philosophy in the way that you, yourself, suggested,...

Philosophy is first and foremost about the search for truth,...

...will often use the ideas of past giants of philosophy (such as Spinoza, for example) to supplement and support our own findings.

With that in mind, according to Copilot (Bing's equivalent of ChatGPT) (underlining and bolding mine)...

• Spinoza, the Dutch rationalist philosopher, espoused a profound concept of substance. According to him, there exists only one substance, which constitutes the entirety of reality. This singular substance is both infinite and all-encompassing.
  
  Here are the key points about Spinoza’s substance:
  
  1. Oneness: Spinoza’s substance is indivisible and unified. It transcends any divisions or distinctions we perceive in the world.
  
  2. Attributes: This one substance manifests itself through infinitely many attributes. Each attribute expresses an aspect of the divine essence. Think of these attributes as different facets of the same gem.
  
  3. God or Nature: Spinoza identifies this substance as God or nature. It encompasses everything—living organisms, stars, thoughts, and galaxies.
  
  4. Modes: Everything else—our individual experiences, finite beings, and specific phenomena—are mere modes of this one substance.
  
  In summary, Spinoza’s oneness substance unites all existence, weaving a cosmic tapestry where everything finds its place.

Anyway, that's kind of "...what seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable substance looks like in practice..."

Say we perfrom a double slit experiment, and to everyone's surprise we don't get two bands, but a kitten? A christmas tree? A plane? A star? Bonbons? Anything we want, because it's an infinitely malleable substance, so it turns into anything we want?

Unfortunately that's not exactly what the physicists have found.

Are you really as thick as that argument makes you out to be?

Did not the infinitely malleable (holographic-like) mental substance of your own mind manifest a corresponding image of all of those items you just listed in the above quote?

Wake up, for crying out loud!

funda-mental

atto would be proud..

And little V would be proud if he understood that, at root, you and he are two materialistic/nihilistic " ̶p̶e̶e̶s̶ peas in a pod" when it comes to sharing the same basic belief that life is meaningless in that it holds no ultimate purpose for us as individuals.
_______

[Atla]

What would seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable subtance even look like in practice?

In case you forgot, Atla, we're on a "philosophy" forum.

And those of us who attempt to use philosophy in the way that you, yourself, suggested,...

Philosophy is first and foremost about the search for truth,...

...will often use the ideas of past giants of philosophy (such as Spinoza, for example) to supplement and support our own findings.

With that in mind, according to Copilot (Bing's equivalent of ChatGPT) (underlining and bolding mine)...

• Spinoza, the Dutch rationalist philosopher, espoused a profound concept of substance. According to him, there exists only one substance, which constitutes the entirety of reality. This singular substance is both infinite and all-encompassing.
  
  Here are the key points about Spinoza’s substance:
  
  1. Oneness: Spinoza’s substance is indivisible and unified. It transcends any divisions or distinctions we perceive in the world.
  
  2. Attributes: This one substance manifests itself through infinitely many attributes. Each attribute expresses an aspect of the divine essence. Think of these attributes as different facets of the same gem.
  
  3. God or Nature: Spinoza identifies this substance as God or nature. It encompasses everything—living organisms, stars, thoughts, and galaxies.
  
  4. Modes: Everything else—our individual experiences, finite beings, and specific phenomena—are mere modes of this one substance.
  
  In summary, Spinoza’s oneness substance unites all existence, weaving a cosmic tapestry where everything finds its place.

Anyway, that's kind of "...what seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable substance looks like in practice..."

Say we perfrom a double slit experiment, and to everyone's surprise we don't get two bands, but a kitten? A christmas tree? A plane? A star? Bonbons? Anything we want, because it's an infinitely malleable substance, so it turns into anything we want?

Unfortunately that's not exactly what the physicists have found.

Are you really as thick as that argument makes you out to be?

Did not the infinitely malleable (holographic-like) mental substance of your own mind manifest a corresponding image of all of those items you just listed in the above quote?

Wake up, for crying out loud!

No it didn't, I'm in the few % of people who have aphantasia and don't seem to be able to experience mental imagery. I can maybe experience a distant conceptual echo of imagery but I don't "see" it.

At least I seem to be dreaming in imagery sometimes, which could mean that dreams aren't mental imagery at all as you believe, but function as if they were input from they eyes, except the origin of the input is internal.

But these are mostly beside the point, because how can you be so dense to think that most people's visualization ability is infinitely malleable, instead of being a very limited ability? Some are better at it and some are worse.

And little V would be proud if he understood that, at root, you and he are two materialistic/nihilistic " ̶p̶e̶e̶s̶ peas in a pod" when it comes to sharing the same basic belief that life is meaningless in that it holds no ultimate purpose for us as individuals.

Lol so either life's ultimate purpose is your fantasy, or it can't have one. Now why would I believe that. Yes so far, life doesn't seem to have much objective meaning. I happen to think that it may sort of have a universal "destiny" for us though which especially focuses on a few people.

[seeds]

What would seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable subtance even look like in practice?

In case you forgot, Atla, we're on a "philosophy" forum.

And those of us who attempt to use philosophy in the way that you, yourself, suggested,...

Philosophy is first and foremost about the search for truth,...

...will often use the ideas of past giants of philosophy (such as Spinoza, for example) to supplement and support our own findings.

With that in mind, according to Copilot (Bing's equivalent of ChatGPT) (underlining and bolding mine)...

• Spinoza, the Dutch rationalist philosopher, espoused a profound concept of substance. According to him, there exists only one substance, which constitutes the entirety of reality. This singular substance is both infinite and all-encompassing.
  
  Here are the key points about Spinoza’s substance:
  
  1. Oneness: Spinoza’s substance is indivisible and unified. It transcends any divisions or distinctions we perceive in the world.
  
  2. Attributes: This one substance manifests itself through infinitely many attributes. Each attribute expresses an aspect of the divine essence. Think of these attributes as different facets of the same gem.
  
  3. God or Nature: Spinoza identifies this substance as God or nature. It encompasses everything—living organisms, stars, thoughts, and galaxies.
  
  4. Modes: Everything else—our individual experiences, finite beings, and specific phenomena—are mere modes of this one substance.
  
  In summary, Spinoza’s oneness substance unites all existence, weaving a cosmic tapestry where everything finds its place.

Anyway, that's kind of "...what seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable substance looks like in practice..."

Say we perfrom a double slit experiment, and to everyone's surprise we don't get two bands, but a kitten? A christmas tree? A plane? A star? Bonbons? Anything we want, because it's an infinitely malleable substance, so it turns into anything we want?

Unfortunately that's not exactly what the physicists have found.

Are you really as thick as that argument makes you out to be?

Did not the infinitely malleable (holographic-like) mental substance of your own mind manifest a corresponding image of all of those items you just listed in the above quote?

Wake up, for crying out loud!

No it didn't, I'm in the few % of people who have aphantasia and don't seem to be able to experience mental imagery. I can maybe experience a distant conceptual echo of imagery but I don't "see" it.

I'm sorry to hear that, Atla, that explains a lot to me.

Are you also incapable of "seeing" your dreams?
_______

[Atla]

In case you forgot, Atla, we're on a "philosophy" forum.

And those of us who attempt to use philosophy in the way that you, yourself, suggested,...

...will often use the ideas of past giants of philosophy (such as Spinoza, for example) to supplement and support our own findings.

With that in mind, according to Copilot (Bing's equivalent of ChatGPT) (underlining and bolding mine)...

Anyway, that's kind of "...what seeds's fantasy of an infinitely malleable substance looks like in practice..."


Are you really as thick as that argument makes you out to be?

Did not the infinitely malleable (holographic-like) mental substance of your own mind manifest a corresponding image of all of those items you just listed in the above quote?

Wake up, for crying out loud!

No it didn't, I'm in the few % of people who have aphantasia and don't seem to be able to experience mental imagery. I can maybe experience a distant conceptual echo of imagery but I don't "see" it.

I'm sorry to hear that, Atla, that explains a lot to me.

Are you also incapable of "seeing" your dreams?
_______

You could just read the rest of my comment above.

[seeds]

No it didn't, I'm in the few % of people who have aphantasia and don't seem to be able to experience mental imagery. I can maybe experience a distant conceptual echo of imagery but I don't "see" it.

I'm sorry to hear that, Atla, that explains a lot to me.

Are you also incapable of "seeing" your dreams?

You could just read the rest of my comment above.

Okay, here it is...

Atla wrote:
At least I seem to be dreaming in imagery sometimes, which could mean that dreams aren't mental imagery at all as you believe, but function as if they were input from they eyes,...

You aren't making any sense.

Obviously, if presumably your eyes are closed (or perhaps, blindfolded) when dreaming, then how in the world could your external eyes have anything whatsoever to do with what you are seeing when you dream?

And I'm sorry, but if you think that this...

...except the origin of the input is internal.

...somehow clarifies the first part of your assertion, then you are wrong.

Atla wrote:
But these are mostly beside the point, because how can you be so dense to think that most people's visualization ability is infinitely malleable, instead of being a very limited ability? Some are better at it and some are worse.

There you go again with your faulty interpretation of what I said.

People's "visualization ability" isn't infinitely malleable (I mean how can an "ability" be infinitely malleable?).

No, it's the Spinozan "oneness substance" from which our thoughts and dreams (and all of the phenomenal features of the universe) are created, that's infinitely malleable.

In other words, we're talking about a substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (take the near infinite details of the universe, for example).

Anyway, here's the question:

Do you or do you not believe that it would be possible for you to dream of a "kitten," and a "Christmas tree," and a "plane," and a "star," and a "bonbon," all in one (albeit strange) dream sequence, in which all five of those items appear before your "mind's eye" in accordance with their respective names?

And if so, tell me what you think those distinctly different items would be made of if not your own personal (infinitely malleable) mental imaging energy?
_______

[Atla]

You aren't making any sense.

Obviously, if presumably your eyes are closed (or perhaps, blindfolded) when dreaming, then how in the world could your external eyes have anything whatsoever to do with what you are seeing when you dream?

And I'm sorry, but if you think that this...
...somehow clarifies the first part of your assertion, then you are wrong.

I meant that we may "see" dreams more or less the same way we "see" the external world when we are awake, except in the former case input isn't coming from the eyes but from internal brain parts.

There you go again with your faulty interpretation of what I said.

People's "visualization ability" isn't infinitely malleable (I mean how can an "ability" be infinitely malleable?).

No, it's the Spinozan "oneness substance" from which our thoughts and dreams (and all of the phenomenal features of the universe) are created, that's infinitely malleable.

In other words, we're talking about a substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (take the near infinite details of the universe, for example).

Anyway, here's the question:

Do you or do you not believe that it would be possible for you to dream of a "kitten," and a "Christmas tree," and a "plane," and a "star," and a "bonbon," all in one (albeit strange) dream sequence, in which all five of those items appear before your "mind's eye" in accordance with their respective names?

And if so, tell me what you think those distinctly different items would be made of if not your own personal (infinitely malleable) mental imaging energy?

Did you not understand anything I wrote above? Why would I think that - what is, by all signs - the limited human dreaming and/or visualization ability, would actually be this supposed Spinozan infinitely malleable substance? Any objective evidence or subjective 'evidence' for this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What I say to Veritas...

• "...Okay, Veritas, because you do not realize that you are sleepwalking through life, then the more passionate and articulate you are in presenting your materialistic vision of reality, then the more you demonstrate...
  
  (in direct proportion to the degree in which you, Veritas, believe your assertions)
  
  ...the depth and degree of your somnambulism..."

What Veritas hears...

• "...blah, blah, Veritas, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,...
  
  (blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Veritas, blah, blah, blah)
  
  ...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..."

_______

It is waste of everybody's time with first-person 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]

And I never said or implied that you did.


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.

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.

Stop lying VA. Transcendental realism may be chasing illusions but philosophical realism generally isn't. And Kant has nothing on indirect realism, or you haven't shown so far that he does. Read again what you hang up on the wall.

This for example is on your wall:

Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists).

It is You who is the liar who is an ignorant gnat and makes arrogant claims on Kant without a thoroughly understanding of Kant's views.

See ChatGpt's response to the above:
Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607