Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Veritas Aequitas]

What does objectivity even mean to someone who doesn't believe the rope is real? Objective with respect to what?

As I had stated "objectivity" do not apply to one individual's opinions, beliefs or judgments.
So the above is off topic re objectivity.

[Flannel Jesus]

The question "what does va mean by objective" is off topic re objectivity? How could it possibly be off topic?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The question "what does va mean by objective" is off topic re objectivity? How could it possibly be off topic?

Again,

As I had stated "objectivity" do not apply to one individual's opinions, beliefs or judgments.
So the above is off topic re objectivity.

You stated earlier.
FJ: "What does objectivity even mean to someone who doesn't believe the rope is real?"
"Someone" is definitely referring to ONE individual.


If you have stated,

"What does objectivity even mean to a tribe who doesn't believe the rope is real?"
If this tribe are not scientific minded, then their tribal-FSK has a low degree of objectivity.

There are many cases of tribal people who did not believe 'white men' they first saw were real to them, rather they perceive them as ghosts.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not talking about a tribe. I'm talking about YOU.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When humans with the same psychological states enter into a room with things, they will get the same lists of the kind of objects.
Why?

Because human nature is universal, e.g. similar brain structures and set up, there will be similarities but not 100% similarities [e.g. due to different psychological states] in the realization of object-X.

But, not so fast.

There are many other variables, e.g. cultural, geographical, societies, race, mental states and other nurturing factors to consider.

Why could we get everyone on PN to walk into a room with a pad and pen..???
How naive that is.

To be more credible, we direct different humans into a room full of things, say, ordinary humans from different cultural, geographical and societies, humans who schizophrenics, and other mental sickness, from tribal regions, different ages, etc.,
I am very certain we will not get the same lists of the kinds of objects.

There are so many Youtube videos which demonstrate how tribal people would interpret things [say object-X] based on their cultural and psychological states as different from what modern society would perceive that object-X.

So realistically, there lists of things will be very different from the wide range of different people going and out of the same room of things.

This why identifying and referencing to the specific human-based FSR-FSK is critical in determining why each group produce their unique listing.

[Flannel Jesus]

When humans with the same psychological states enter into a room with things, they will get the same lists of the kind of objects.
Why?

Because human nature is universal, e.g. similar brain structures and set up, there will be similarities but not 100% similarities [e.g. due to different psychological states] in the realization of object-X.

Sounds like you're talking about a room that had things in it already, even before anybody entered the room. Sounds like a realist scenario to me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not talking about a tribe. I'm talking about YOU.

Off topic again?

It is not about talking to whom, but referring to a someone or a group of people [e.g. a tribe or any other group].

[Veritas Aequitas]

When humans with the same psychological states enter into a room with things, they will get the same lists of the kind of objects.
Why?

Because human nature is universal, e.g. similar brain structures and set up, there will be similarities but not 100% similarities [e.g. due to different psychological states] in the realization of object-X.

Sounds like you're talking about a room that had things in it already, even before anybody entered the room. Sounds like a realist scenario to me.

I qualified my post;

This why identifying and referencing to the specific human-based FSR-FSK is critical in determining why each group produce their unique listing.

[Flannel Jesus]

It can't be off topic to ask about what the creator of the topic means by a central word in the topic. I don't know why you keep saying it's off topic. Maybe you're not quite sure what the topic is? Or you just generally can't tell which things are on topic?

[Flannel Jesus]

When humans with the same psychological states enter into a room with things, they will get the same lists of the kind of objects.
Why?

Because human nature is universal, e.g. similar brain structures and set up, there will be similarities but not 100% similarities [e.g. due to different psychological states] in the realization of object-X.

Sounds like you're talking about a room that had things in it already, even before anybody entered the room. Sounds like a realist scenario to me.

I qualified my post;

This why identifying and referencing to the specific human-based FSR-FSK is critical in determining why each group produce their unique listing.

Just saying "I qualified my post" doesn't remove the realist implications.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sounds like you're talking about a room that had things in it already, even before anybody entered the room. Sounds like a realist scenario to me.

I qualified my post;

This why identifying and referencing to the specific human-based FSR-FSK is critical in determining why each group produce their unique listing.

Just saying "I qualified my post" doesn't remove the realist implications.

That was not my idea but rather from a realist, thus I finally has to qualify to an anti-realist position.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know what those words mean. I do, however, know what it means to walk into a room with stuff in it. It means the stuff was in the room, even though nobody was looking at it.

[Skepdick]

I don't know what those words mean. I do, however, know what it means to walk into a room with stuff in it. It means the stuff was in the room, even though nobody was looking at it.

That’s a peculiar theory of meaning.

How do you know what was in the room before you walked into it - are you clairvoyant or something?

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=654311 time=1688710254 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=654111 time=1688624410 user_id=15238]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=649133 time=1686968943 user_id=7896]
Philosophical Realism deny the existence of moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective.

[list][b]Philosophical Realism[/b] ....... is the view that a certain kind of thing (like numbers, morality, or the physical world) 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[/list]

There is an inherent evolutionary default of external-ness or mind-independence critical for basic survival.
But Philosophical Realists cling to this default as a dogmatic ideology as the [b]most real[/b] which is absurd and illusory.
Philosophical realists are insisting in taking an ASSUMPTION as really real in reality.

Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

[list]1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].[/list]

Therefore, Philosophical Realism which claim reality [things in reality] is mind-independent is absurd.

Views?
[/quote]
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. All things exist as a pattern in a mind and have a neural correlate. Whether they have a physical referent is a separate question.
[/quote]
All terms within a language is subject to 'meaning indeterminacy"

[list]In linguistics and literary studies, the term indeterminacy refers to the instability of meaning, the uncertainty of reference, and the variations in interpretations of grammatical forms and categories in any natural language.
As David A. Swinney has observed, "Indeterminacy exists at essentially every descriptive level of word, sentence, and discourse analysis" (Understanding Word and Sentence, 1991).
https://www.thoughtco.com/indeterminacy ... rm-1691054[/list]

In my case, what is mind is this typical meaning;

[list]The [b]mind[/b] (adjective form: mental) is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena.[2][3][4]
The mind is also associated with experiencing perception, pleasure and pain, belief, desire, intention, and emotion.
The mind can include conscious and non-conscious states as well as sensory and non-sensory experiences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind[/list]

The above mind [as defined] can be reducible to its neural correlates which are neurons in action within a process which is its physical referent.
Surely it is undeniable all neural activities are reducible to their physical neurons as the physical referent?

What is physical [nothing to do with physicalism] is that which can be verified and justified via Physics and other sciences.
[/quote]

The neuronal patterns are a correlate, not a referent except in the case of "neural patterns".

[Flannel Jesus]

Still can't wrap my head around why advocate can't quote. What a puzzling thing to see. What are you doing to make these posts advocate? You must be doing something really strange to make them come out this way.