Philosophy Now Forum

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:23 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:27 pm 'We experience the universe through a model in the head, therefore the universe depends on the model in the head.'

Goddammit..

OMG, do you mean to tell me that this world I see and which I thought was real is no more than an unreal, image in my head? How about my head? Is that also just an image in my head? How depressing and actually more than I can think!!!

Your use of the word "in" [container metaphor] is a strawman.
This is a very natural response which is very primal, not philosophical.

Here is my point;

• Example:
  If you take a sphere which is full of large holes [ of 1cm diameter] all over,
  what you see is a sphere-with-1cm-holes.
  
  However, if you spin the sphere with increasing speed, you will initially see and can feel the holes in the sphere, but slowly as the speed of the spin increases, what you see and feel is a solid surface spinning sphere without seeing and feeling the real holes in it.
  
  If you were to feel it, you will feel a solid surface spinning sphere and there is no doubt about your feeling it.
  But you know what you are seeing and felt is an illusion, but note this is not "in" your head.
  It is not unreal because you can feel it as really a solid surface spinning sphere.
  So it is not an image in your head but a reality based on what is felt.
  
  Say, if your friend were to come by while the sphere is spinning, he will see and can feel a REAL solid spinning sphere.
  What he felt cannot be in his head because he saw and touched the spinning sphere outside of him.

As such you are wrong in thinking 'what I proposed the world and what is real' is in an image in your head.
Nope I not claiming that reality is in your head.
What I had claimed is reality is an emergence spontaneously out of the human conditions [body, brain, mind] in interaction with the external environment leveraged upon evolution to date.

There are neural activities in one's head/brain, i.e. thinking, perceiving, imaging, reasoning, etc. but what is reality is not images in one's head.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:55 am [Hang onto you chair. Here goes. YES, I am a DIRECT REALIST!!! Indirect realism has not been found to be correct. There may be a model of reality in my brain, but it is not that that I directly experience. When I look at the people outside my window, I am not looking at a model in my brain. I am looking at the people outside my window. I would say that I think you are mad, but I do rather have some respect for madness. I will just say that your philosophy is silly.

You are right in one sense [common sense] and perspective of externality.
There is an external world out there with objects and people which are physically independent of my physical self.
Thus to think otherwise from this relatively necessary and critical perspective of externality would be seem to be 'madness'.

But philosophy is not focus on common sense, but a reflection of what is really real.

At some deeper of philosophical reflection what is true within common sense is not what it is seem to be, i.e. it is only relatively true to common sense, but not to a higher philosophical sense.

Note Russell's reflection on the truth of the common sense table [mine] - read it carefully;
(btw, Russell was not mad then when he came up with the following philosophical reflection).

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.

Thus our familiar [common sense] table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.

Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.

• Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls:
  Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God;
  sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Point is if you do not reflect deeply in philosophy you will be stuck with common sense only - which we know is not credible - thus not credible enough to accuse others who had reflected deeply [philosophically] and view reality differently, as mad.

I have always thought of the Theory of Emergence as a return of the mythological figure of the Great Mother giving birth to the world and then reabsorbing the world at the end of time. Womb and Tomb.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:55 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:53 am
Umm it was sarcasm, Veritas for some reason fully believes that the universe depends on the model in the head.

But don't tell me that you are a direct realist? Hello, indirect realism was found to be correct long ago? There is a model of the outside world in your head, and that's what you directly experience. The model is technically a part of the world it's modeling.

Hang onto you chair. Here goes. YES, I am a DIRECT REALIST!!! Indirect realism has not been found to be correct. There may be a model of reality in my brain, but it is not that that I directly experience. When I look at the people outside my window, I am not looking at a model in my brain. I am looking at the people outside my window. I would say that I think you are mad, but I do rather have some respect for madness. I will just say that your philosophy is silly.

Of course indirect realism was found correct, and direct realism was refuted like 10 times over. Carry on..

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:47 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:06 am
What is experienced and justified is really real.
Do you agree with this.

What is experienced, matter, is an illusion since does not persist during the change.

I have stated the obvious 'the only constant [persisting] is change'.
Note Heraclitus'

Heraclitus concluded that nature is change. Like a river, nature flows ever onwards. Even the nature of the flow changes.

Heraclitus’ vision of life is clear in his epigram on the river of flux:

‘We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not’ (B49a).
https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.c ... on-change/

Heraclitus' contention is there is nothing that persists within change.
Can you prove him wrong?

I already provided my argument "There is a change, therefore there is a mind". You don't pay any attention to it!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:06 am Your point re emergence of a new property via materialism is irrelevant.

It is relevant. Matter affects matter because it has properties. No properties, no effects.

The above is pure speculation and illusory.
There is no matter-in-itself that effects another matter-in-itself.

That is what physics about, the relation between properties of matter.

Note if we only have eyes but have intellect and reasoning like we do, we can use science to dig into the truth beyond our eyes. Using Science we can measure depth [e.g.using sonar] from where the source of the light came from and when this is image, there will reveal the hollowness.

Strictly speaking this is false. The sonar would be understood only in connection to the visual data, since there is no other. One would at best posit something “beyond” which has no content.

-----

1. Visual truths - there is only a convex mask

2. Scientific truth [a more refined truth], there is no convex mask, but there is only a hollow mask.

Science would here name metaphysics, or, more exactly: speculation. A going “beyond” the empirical or repeatable recipes of experience. Through an interpretation of the “sonar” experiment data.

Since there is no absolute reality and truths that is independent by itself, what is reality [ all-there-is] is an emergence, i.e. a qualified emergent upon a defined perspective.

“Gegen den Positivismus, welcher bei dem Phänomen stehen bleibt "es giebt nur Thatsachen," würde ich sagen: nein, gerade Thatsachen giebt es nicht, nur Interpretationen.”

But, “emergence” names another interpretation. I suppose that the insistence on a certain claim about the possibility called reality must be in place to speak of the emergence. However, one might take the opposite view, that what is for us in the circumstance of our daily life in the reality, since it is the womb we are born through.

Thus my point;
Reality is an Emergence.
Agree?

It is more concrete to note that the sciences have long ago given up seeking reality, but instead put forth policies about how to use the basic stratum as of that within the so-called “atom.”

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:04 pm
Of course indirect realism was found correct, and direct realism was refuted like 10 times over. Carry on..

LOL. I suppose we could go on in this inane manner for a long time, but I think I should explain myself a bit better. I follow those philosophers who came out the the New Realism at Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, et al.. More recent direct realists that I follow are Gustav Bergmann, Reinhardt Grossmann, Molte Gramm and such. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=moltke+gram&dc&ref=a9_sc_1 These are all high-powered, well-respected ontologists who fight representational (aka critical or scientific) realism. They go through all the arguments for indirect realism and offer a rebuttal. I mention that only to show you that no final refutation of direct realism exists. It is an on-going argument. I would love to engage with you in arguing that point. Just please don't dismiss direct realism out of hand, without proper consideration.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:49 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:04 pm
Of course indirect realism was found correct, and direct realism was refuted like 10 times over. Carry on..

LOL. I suppose we could go on in this inane manner for a long time, but I think I should explain myself a bit better. I follow those philosophers who came out the the New Realism at Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, et al.. More recent direct realists that I follow are Gustav Bergmann, Reinhardt Grossmann, Molte Gramm and such. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=moltke+gram&dc&ref=a9_sc_1 These are all high-powered, well-respected ontologists who fight representational (aka critical or scientific) realism. They go through all the arguments for indirect realism and offer a rebuttal. I mention that only to show you that no final refutation of direct realism exists. It is an on-going argument. I would love to engage with you in arguing that point. Just please don't dismiss direct realism out of hand, without proper consideration.

Why shouldn't I dismiss it out of hand, I can't just ignore the last 100 years of neuroscience and psychology, and science in general. I have also found out through my own life experience that what I experience is a model, and have been trying to improve it since then, rather succesfully.

By and large only the model in the head itself is experienced directly (there may be some minor direct perceptions in addition to it). I haven't heard of any good arguments left in support of direct realism.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:50 am By and large only the model in the head itself is experienced directly (there may be some minor direct perceptions in addition to it). I haven't heard of any good arguments left in support of direct realism.

Kripke.

The connection between reality and your experience is still a causal chain.

The semantic argument becomes about relativizing "directness" - whether the causal chain has 1 step (more direct) or 100000^100000 steps (less direct) - it's still direct-by-causality.

If you preach non-dualism, you can't also preach directness/indirectness as a dichotomy.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:14 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:50 am By and large only the model in the head itself is experienced directly (there may be some minor direct perceptions in addition to it). I haven't heard of any good arguments left in support of direct realism.

Kripke.

The connection between reality and your experience is still a causal chain.

The semantic argument becomes about relativizing "directness" - whether the causal chain has 1 step (more direct) or 100000^100000 steps (less direct) - it's still direct-by-causality.

If you preach non-dualism, you can't also preach directness/indirectness as a dichotomy.

Heyyyyyyyyy best buddy how are you

Nice word salad you produced, I see you haven't changed a bit

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:55 am Nice word salad you produced

Did your parser malfunction? I can explain it to you like you are 5

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:55 am I see you haven't changed a bit

Well, I followed your advice (you'll be happy to hear). Apparently, in Philosophy there is no need to change when you are always right.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:00 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:55 am Nice word salad you produced

Did your parser malfunction? I can explain it to you like you are 5

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:55 am I see you haven't changed a bit

Well, I followed your advice (you'll be happy to hear). Apparently, in Philosophy there is no need to change when you are always right.

Whatever you say, carry on

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:03 am Whatever you say, carry on

I am done saying what I needed to say.

You are reifying the direct/indirect dichotomy. Your disagreement with yourself continues.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:58 am In fundamental ontology, not reifying constructs like abstractions and types is part of any sane philosophy. In nondualism they don't reify made-up dichotomies either in fundamental ontology, for example subject vs object, I vs other, mind vs matter.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:04 pm Of course indirect realism was found correct, and direct realism was refuted like 10 times over. Carry on..

Carry on

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:03 am Whatever you say, carry on

I am done saying what I needed to say.

You are reifying the direct/indirect dichotomy. Your disagreement with yourself continues.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:58 am In fundamental ontology, not reifying constructs like abstractions and types is part of any sane philosophy. In nondualism they don't reify made-up dichotomies either in fundamental ontology, for example subject vs object, I vs other, mind vs matter.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:04 pm Of course indirect realism was found correct, and direct realism was refuted like 10 times over. Carry on..

Carry on

At first glance I counted about 3-4 errors in what you just said.
Not being able to process context is such a bitch.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:13 am Not being able to process context is such a bitch.

I am sorry to hear about your disability. Would you like me to teach you what context is?

It's a grammatical construct.

Till you understand how it works, I'll always frame you