Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:10 amMy point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

Those who claim there is an independent apple-on-the-table out there is absolutely and very real in itself independent of the human condition is delusional, i.e. being ignorant that apple is actually an illusion [like the hollow-mask appearing solid 3D].

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:33 amPhilosophical Realism claims that reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme they exists even if there are no humans.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:54 pm Your point is that philosophical realists are like those bad guys over there. There is no reasoning, no arguments, whatsoever in your post. Your entire post is basically "See how wrong these guys are? Well, that's how wrong philosophical realists are!" It's a very hollow post.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:08 pmThe thread is basically an insult. It should have been a private message.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:10 am I am sure many people are familiar with the Hollow Mask Illusion where the hollow-mask is always perceived as a real 3D-Convex face. The deception and hollow mask can be verified by empirical inspection i.e. by seeing and feeling the hollowness of the mask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Let's assume this qualified scenario.
No one [none of the 8 billion people] in the world is aware of the Hollow Mask Illusion.
A turning hollow mask is presented to all the 8 billion humans and since they are ignorant of the illusion, they will perceive a 'real 3D-convex face'.
In this example, there is no way, the 8 billion humans will ever be informed that what they are seeing is an illusion.
Based only on this visual empirical evidence, the majority of the 8 billion people will insist it is a real 'real 3D-convex face' face.

However there is 0.32% [Link] [~25,800,000] who insist the majority of the 8 billion people are wrong because to them there is only a hollow-mask!
Why? because ..
Schizophrenics see through hollow-mask illusion
Optical Illusion [e.g. Hollow mask] Detects Illness -Schizophrenia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs

In this case, who are the delusional ones?
the normal majority nearly 8 billion people or the 25 million schizophrenia?
The 25 million schizophrenics are perceiving the real things and thus more realistic.

It is the normal majority who claimed what they are perceiving is reality in itself are delusional.

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

Those who claim there is an independent apple-on-the-table out there is absolutely and very real in itself independent of the human condition is delusional, i.e. being ignorant that apple is actually an illusion [like the hollow-mask appearing solid 3D].

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:10 am I am sure many people are familiar with the Hollow Mask Illusion where the hollow-mask is always perceived as a real 3D-Convex face. The deception and hollow mask can be verified by empirical inspection i.e. by seeing and feeling the hollowness of the mask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:17 pm

MagsJ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 12:38 pm _
Grown people stating that the moon does not exist, if/when not seen.

Unbelievable!

Clearly, something associated with what we call "the moon" (something with mass circling the earth) exists. Otherwise, how would you explain the ocean tides?

I mean, does VA actually believe that if for an entire week, no conscious beings on earth looked out into space to see the moon, then there would not have been any high or low tides for 7 days?

MagsJ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 12:38 pm The 3D-Mask Illusion has zero correlation with this discussion, as that is a brain/optic dichotomy and not a thought-experiment one.

Well, in coming to VA's defense (something I rarely do), it does seem to be related to the possible "observer effect" in quantum theory. Therefore, I wouldn't say it has "zero" correlation to the discussion.

That being said, what VA cannot seem to understand is that before you can have an illusion such as this,...



...there needs to be the presence of some sort of pre-existing, highly organized substance (or system) in place from which the illusion can then manifest.

In other words, he seems to be implying that both the moon, and the illusion created by the rotating mask, spring-forth out of pure nothingness whenever we look.

And that is nonsense.

"...landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:39 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:21 am After a nice little exchange with FJ, it seems to me that if VA's antirealism is the case, then
there is no right answer.
If there is no thing in itself,
then both reactions are correct.

There's no mask in itself that we can check to find out who is right.

Both the schizophenics and the majority are correct. I mean, how could they not be?

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

So, you are accepting that both are right?
Otherwise we have competing FSKs. In fact, that's where we are. Competing FSKs. And how could an antirealist say the majority are wrong about the mask. That's assuming a thing in itself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 12:36 pm And let's remember:
months back I gave the scenario of a room with a box. Different people enter the room and, in realism, they find the same object in the box.

VA argued that it was not the same object or we couldn't know if it was. Well, if we can't know if it was the same object, then we can't know if it is the same mask/sculpture.

Any attempt to decide and declare that the object is a mask or is 3d is realism. It is attempting to/claiming to find out what is there real object behind the appearances.

And we can head to VA's thread on appearances to find out that those are all that exist.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:54 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:10 amMy point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

Those who claim there is an independent apple-on-the-table out there is absolutely and very real in itself independent of the human condition is delusional, i.e. being ignorant that apple is actually an illusion [like the hollow-mask appearing solid 3D].

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

Your point is that philosophical realists are like those bad guys over there. There is no reasoning, no arguments, whatsoever in your post. Your entire post is basically "See how wrong these guys are? Well, that's how wrong philosophical realists are!" It's a very hollow post.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:33 amPhilosophical Realism claims that reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme they exists even if there are no humans.

Can you define the term "mind-independent"? What does it mean for something to be mind-independent?

Philosophical realism – – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:17 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:08 pmThe thread is basically an insult. It should have been a private message.

Precisely. And he should stop referencing Peter Holmes every chance he gets.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:01 pm This all makes sense... in the pre-technological era. Where the only perspectives were your's and mine. Now there is also the perspective of human made detectors, who can perceive 1) without psychological and behavioral biases and 2) in finer and more varied detail than you or I.

Thus the ability to make observations independent of human limitations is possible (and has been possible for quite a while).

• 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.
  CPR B397

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:06 pm And I suggest that it is "nonsense" in a way that is similar to Kant's insistence that if we were to believe such a thing, then we would be...

"...landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

And in regard to your claim of only schizophrenics being able to recognize the mask illusion, you are simply confirming my suggestion (in an alternate thread) that the brains of "normal" humans have been programmed (via evolution) not to recognize the illusory nature of reality,...

Is it good for a human to see that reality is an illusion, or is it a bad thing?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:39 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:21 am After a nice little exchange with FJ, it seems to me that if VA's antirealism is the case, then
there is no right answer.
If there is no thing in itself,
then both reactions are correct.

There's no mask in itself that we can check to find out who is right.

Both the schizophenics and the majority are correct. I mean, how could they not be?

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

So, you are accepting that both are right?
Otherwise we have competing FSKs. In fact, that's where we are. Competing FSKs. And how could an antirealist say the majority are wrong about the mask. That's assuming a thing in itself.