For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Would you go into detail on what you mean by "absolute mind independence" and why you think it's not realistic?Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:15 pm*absolute mind-independence is never realistic, that's why no one is talking about that anymoreVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am My point; philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic
It's what VA seems to talk about, and he also conflates it with every other meaning of mind-independence, which is pretty crazy. He also thinks that that's what everyone else talks about too. I'll copy an earlier comment of mine, it's the number 1 on the list, where there is an absolute division between mind and the natural world. I assume it's obvious why that's not realistic.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:18 pm Would you go into detail on what you mean by "absolute mind independence" and why you think it's not realistic?
I think the main problem here is that mind-independence means at least 3-4 different things. Taking 3-4 different things and mixing them together into one amorphous blob doesn't lead anywhere, an example is VA who has been hopelessly chasing his own tail for many years. Those 3-4 different things need to be evaluated individually, for example:
1. mind-independence as in the God's-eye-view: probably this view was, and to a degree still is a major collective hallucination, shared by countless people. Such independence was the 19th century scientist's dream. We are "looking into" a perfectly objective, independent world (reality), we are watching it as it happen, but we never disturb it in any way. We somehow have this God's-eye-view that looks into the world from an outside perspective. But when we try to find ourselves, the looker, this outside point, we don't find anything, can't find anything, but this doesn't seem to bother people.
This form of mind-independence is indeed probably crazy. In this sense, reality probably isn't mind-independent. But one also can't say that reality is mind-dependent, only that it's not-independent, that's the correct opposite. There's no outside perspective, instead there's an inside perspective that feels like an outside perspective.
(anti-realism vs realism 1-0)
2. mind-independence as in absolute independence from the rest of the world: the human mind is probably a part of the head, so as VA would say "part and parcel of reality". In this sense the world again isn't mind-independent, but it's also not mind-dependent, just non-independent.
(2-0)
3. mind-independence of the presumed outside world in the non-absolute sense, that there is a shared objective reality "out there" and every human perceives it in a different way, while the mind is also part of this world: this form of mind-independence is probably correct, using science we could build an accurate model, mapping of this objective relity, and this model is a thousands times better and bigger than anything else, yet can be made to account for everything
(2-1)
4. mind-independence in a more Kantian sense: yes everything we ever experience is our own mind, it's not possible to get outside of it, there are only the appearances. Within our own mind, using its features, faculties, we construct the idea, the experience of the outside world. We live a representation within our own heads, and the representation works pretty well (unless one is schizophrenic etc.)
Which however totally doesn't mean that our mind can't have an outside, nor does it mean that such an outside would be mind-dependent in some absolute or relative sense.
(2.5-1.5)
5. mind-independence in quantum mechanics yeah yeah.. I think the mind would have to be fairly separate, independent, something "other" than mere stuff, in order to be responsible for quantum weirdness. Here mind-dependence kinda shoots itself in the foot.
Personally I believe that human thinking is linear, but reality as a whole is of course inherently circular because every other idea is incoherent. And our human minds may be smaller circular things within the bigger circular reality, which may have to do with quantum weirdness.
Still it would be more of a "consistency of the outer reality with mental phenomena, in some rather technical way(s)" than mind-dependence in a very literal sense.
Or maybe something else is going on entirely.
The 2022 Nobel was of course for refuting the idea of locality. Locality isn't real, or at least not fundamental. It's at best a soft-emergent property. Reality is non-local (not just in space but also in time). Which probably (by Occam's razor) has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical realism or anti-realism.
Anything in QM can be interpreted in both realism and anti-realism. I think by Occam's razor we end up with realism and an extra dimension btw.
Say (2.75-2.25)
Well looks like by my count, anti-realism got a little more points than realism, but imo the best models are overall almost "halfway" between realism and anti-realism. So I never really understand what people mean when they fully take one position or the other.
Yes, #1 is simply about some kind of fundamental separation. Like, the human mind, or the human "I", or something, was experiencing reality from behind an ever-present, invisible glass wall. Looking in.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:38 pmSo what's the difference between #1 and #3 in your view? Does #1 involve the idea that humans themselves are somehow separate from reality, is that what #1 is getting at? Separate and observing it without themselves being a part of it?
Yeah I think that's pretty reasonable.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:59 pmYes, #1 is simply about some kind of fundamental separation. Like, the human mind, or the human "I", or something, was experiencing reality from behind an ever-present, invisible glass wall. Looking in.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:38 pmSo what's the difference between #1 and #3 in your view? Does #1 involve the idea that humans themselves are somehow separate from reality, is that what #1 is getting at? Separate and observing it without themselves being a part of it?
This is a perfectly self-contradictory position, because how can you even "see" something that is completely independent from you?
But I think almost everyone else is automatically thinking about #3 when mind-independence of an objectively existing world is mentioned. There, such an above separation doesn't have to be assumed at all.
Actually, I think #1 was a serious philosophical issue somewhere around the late 19th century, at least in scientific circles. #1 was pretty much a fundamental assumption of science, in the form of absolute scientific objectivity. Scientists left the investigation of the mental realm to the philosophers, and only concerned themselves with the material world. Or better yet, some of them proceeded to completely deny the existence of the mental realm, as there was no longer any use for it. There was simpy the clockwork universe, which they could investigate via absolute objectivity.
This is the anti-realist view;Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:54 am If fsks can be wrong, then what in the world do you mean when you say truth is conditioned upon an FSK?
And wrong with respect to what?
A realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to reality. I have no idea what an anti realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to. There has to be some arena, some context, something to compare it against, which makes it wrong. For realists, that arena, that context, that thing it's being compared against is reality itself.
Peter Holmes has not accepted it explicitly.And has Peter Holmes reacted positively to this change of wording? Does he accept it?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:43 am I only used 'human conditions' with [philosophical immature] people like Peter Holmes who do not believe a human mind exists at all.
Note the additional factors;vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:24 pm
Betelgeuse is 642 light years away. If we see it go supernova now then the actual event occurred 642 light years ago.
Can't find your quantum thread but you might find this interesting. A theory that black holes could act as 'observers', causing particles to collapse into matter and the reality that we know. He's good, once you get past the extremely annoying accent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hi48l ... ntonPetrov
I'm inclined to agree. There's a lot the 'black hole observer' theory doesn't explain.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:29 amNote the additional factors;vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:24 pm
Betelgeuse is 642 light years away. If we see it go supernova now then the actual event occurred 642 light years ago.
Can't find your quantum thread but you might find this interesting. A theory that black holes could act as 'observers', causing particles to collapse into matter and the reality that we know. He's good, once you get past the extremely annoying accent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hi48l ... ntonPetrov
Since humans are not omniscient-God, a human-based theory from a human-based science-physics-cosmology is inevitable.
- " a human-based theory from a human-based science-physics-cosmology theorize [speculate] that black holes could act as 'observers', causing particles to collapse into matter and the reality that we know.
Even if the speculation becomes true, logically, it follows, ultimately somehow the final reality is it cannot be human mind-independent.
It is somehow related to humans; since ALL humans are part and parcel of reality.
I have listened to many videos of Anton Petrov and other Physicists of the like.
There are many views with different perspective regarding mind-independence.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:18 pmWould you go into detail on what you mean by "absolute mind independence" and why you think it's not realistic?Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:15 pm*absolute mind-independence is never realistic, that's why no one is talking about that anymoreVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am My point; philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic
I don't see how you can, if all truth is "conditioned upon an FSK". You can't ask if it's reliable or credible or objective, because the fsk is itself the center of truth for you. There's no objective reality to compare it to, the fsk itself is what all truth is "conditioned upon". Tautologically, then, an FSK and all of its beliefs must be the truth. You can't say "the astronomy fsk is wrong about this star", because all truths are conditioned upon an FSK, so... what fsk are you conditioning that truth on? Clearly not the astronomy fsk.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:22 amThis is the anti-realist view;Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:54 am If fsks can be wrong, then what in the world do you mean when you say truth is conditioned upon an FSK?
And wrong with respect to what?
A realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to reality. I have no idea what an anti realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to. There has to be some arena, some context, something to compare it against, which makes it wrong. For realists, that arena, that context, that thing it's being compared against is reality itself.
As evident, the scientific FSK had been wrong many times with certain "scientific facts".
These "scientific facts' were found to be wrong when new evidences prove otherwise, so these 'scientific facts' deemed as wrong are rejected and thus cannot be claimed as scientific facts per se as conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
A proposition is wrong in relation to a specific FSK, i.e. if they do not meet the conditions of that specific FSK. The wrongness has to be qualified to the specific FSK.
Thus, scientific claims are wrong because and when they do not meet the conditions of the scientific FSK.
I stated 'What is truth' is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
Conditioned mean that proposition satisfy the requirements, conditions and CONSTITUTION of the specific FSK.
Thus Hydrogen exists as a gas with certain properties is true because it satisfies the requirements, conditions and CONSTITUTION of the science-chemistry FSK.
When the science-astronomy FSK changed some of its conditions, Pluto is an ordinary planet is not true, rather it is true, Pluto is a dwarf planet.
God exists is true [to theists] because it satisfies the requirements, conditions and CONSTITUTION of the theistic-FSK.
Point is we cannot stop or force each claimant from claiming what they proposed within their specific FSK is true.
But we can question whether their FSK with its Constitution is reliable, credible, objective or not.
Intuitively can you sense the Astrology-FSK is not as credible, reliable and objective as the Science-Physics-FSK?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:24 amI don't see how you can, if all truth is "conditioned upon an FSK". You can't ask if it's reliable or credible or objective, because the fsk is itself the center of truth for you. There's no objective reality to compare it to, the fsk itself is what all truth is "conditioned upon". Tautologically, then, an FSK and all of its beliefs must be the truth. You can't say "the astronomy fsk is wrong about this star", because all truths are conditioned upon an FSK, so... what fsk are you conditioning that truth on? Clearly not the astronomy fsk.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:22 amThis is the anti-realist view;Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:54 am If fsks can be wrong, then what in the world do you mean when you say truth is conditioned upon an FSK?
And wrong with respect to what?
A realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to reality. I have no idea what an anti realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to. There has to be some arena, some context, something to compare it against, which makes it wrong. For realists, that arena, that context, that thing it's being compared against is reality itself.
As evident, the scientific FSK had been wrong many times with certain "scientific facts".
These "scientific facts' were found to be wrong when new evidences prove otherwise, so these 'scientific facts' deemed as wrong are rejected and thus cannot be claimed as scientific facts per se as conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
A proposition is wrong in relation to a specific FSK, i.e. if they do not meet the conditions of that specific FSK. The wrongness has to be qualified to the specific FSK.
Thus, scientific claims are wrong because and when they do not meet the conditions of the scientific FSK.
I stated 'What is truth' is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
Conditioned mean that proposition satisfy the requirements, conditions and CONSTITUTION of the specific FSK.
Thus Hydrogen exists as a gas with certain properties is true because it satisfies the requirements, conditions and CONSTITUTION of the science-chemistry FSK.
When the science-astronomy FSK changed some of its conditions, Pluto is an ordinary planet is not true, rather it is true, Pluto is a dwarf planet.
God exists is true [to theists] because it satisfies the requirements, conditions and CONSTITUTION of the theistic-FSK.
Point is we cannot stop or force each claimant from claiming what they proposed within their specific FSK is true.
But we can question whether their FSK with its Constitution is reliable, credible, objective or not.
If all truths are "conditioned upon an FSK", then how in the world can an FSK be wrong?
How many have you got?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:55 am
One we have determined the above,
we can then compare it against other FSKs.
You haven't really answered to the points I was making.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:55 am Intuitively can you sense the Astrology-FSK is not as credible, reliable and objective as the Science-Physics-FSK?
If you are not theist, but a rational person, one can intuitive sense the theistic FSK [creationism] is not credible and reliable in constrast to the science-physics-cosmological FSK.
Surely you will agree with the above?
So how can we arrive at a more rational and objective basis of the above comparisons?
Note - I believe we have discussed this issue?
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
One we have determined the above,
we can then compare it against other FSKs.
I will try, hope it answer your point;Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:17 amYou haven't really answered to the points I was making.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:55 am Intuitively can you sense the Astrology-FSK is not as credible, reliable and objective as the Science-Physics-FSK?
If you are not theist, but a rational person, one can intuitive sense the theistic FSK [creationism] is not credible and reliable in constrast to the science-physics-cosmological FSK.
Surely you will agree with the above?
So how can we arrive at a more rational and objective basis of the above comparisons?
Note - I believe we have discussed this issue?
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
One we have determined the above,
we can then compare it against other FSKs.
I intuitively think astrology is not credible, but I intuitively do so using realist thought patterns. Astrologists think the world works a certain way, the world in fact does not work that way - even if every person in the world thinks it does - and so therefore astrology is incorrect. That's how realists think about it.
And you could arrange the same sort of statement about some fact that astronomy is objectively wrong about, as a realist. Astronomy thinks this thing is true, it is in fact not true in objective reality, so astronomy is wrong, and it's wrong even if not a single person in the world knows it's wrong.
But how does someone who thinks that truths are conditioned upon fsks think about it? Well, you can't just say "astronomy is wrong", because you haven't conditioned that truth on an FSK. To condition a truth upon an FSK, you have to say something like "according to this fsk". You obviously can't say "According to the astronomy fsk, the astronomy fsk is wrong" - tautologically, the astronomy fsk must agree with itself.
So if it's wrong, and it's true that it's wrong, then upon what fsk is that truth conditioned?