Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 8534
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 8:33 am 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.
If minds cocreate what they experience and the quantum foam is neutral - as VA seemed to be saying. IOW there is no thing there. And the experience of a thing arises, in this case, when we walk in the room.

Why is there so much consistancy about what people label as the contents of rooms?

Why isn't it random? (and in our everday lives also. sure we have differences, errors, not noticing...but in general we do not find out that rooms were filled with completely different things seconds later when someone else walks in. It should be all the time if we are just dealing with minds and utterly neutral q-foam)

Especially if you put things people would not expect to find in the room, then send a bunch of strangers one at a time into rooms, why will their lists be so similar`?

Why does the qm foam collapse into the same things?

It seems like there is an incredible tendency for the quantum foam to go in a certain direction each time.

That seems like a kind of realism.

(I actually think there might be solutions to this, but they are very, very counterintuitive. I mean, much more than any metaphysical antirealism I've seen in philosophy sources.)

But I am interested in how VA reconciles this.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I stated this earlier and I wonder why some people are not getting the point?
  • 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.
Sure if we get everyone on PN to on PN to walk into a room with a pad and pen supposed containing a list of things as proposed by realists;
it is likely most [with exceptions] will produce the same listing because they are of the same genre of people of modern society connected to the Internet.
This is a reflection of Wittgenstein 'language games'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_ ... hilosophy).

Note this;
If there are certain philosophical writings, realists and anti-realists may produce different listing for those articles.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8534
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 11:25 am 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.[/list]
I don't think Wittgenstein's language games provides an answer. But please, walk us through the argument.

Given that they could come back with completely different lists, why do they keep coming back with very similar or exactly the same lists?

I can't see any way Wittgenstein's language games explains why.

We have minds walking into rooms that could produce any list at all. But in the majority of cases will produce very similar lists, regardless of the content types of the things in the room.

Explain how Wittgenstein's language games demonstrate that the lists would be very close/the same as
given all the possible items that could be cocreated with the quantum foam in the rooms.

But please, obviously I could be wrong. Walk us through the argument. I'm familiar with Wittgenstein and with his language games idea. I don't see it, so please connect the dots.

Out of all the possible objects that modern westerners know they find the same objects in the room.

Why?

Why did the quantum foam coalesce again and again into the same objects?

Why don't we encounter quite different rooms from other people all the time? Why is there so much regularity?

I understand the issue you are raising around schizophrenics and people from other cultures, but your version of antirealism needs to explain why there would be any consistancy even in the more minor diversity of modern Westerners.

There should not be any consistancy at all, given what you have said. So, explain the consistancy that you and we experience.


Let's even give a concrete example: I put the following in a room in a field. A stuffed horse, a computer, a set of big fluffy red dice, two chairs, a large painting on the wall of a dog staring with big eyes, and a bed in the room.

Why will 100 non-mentally ill Westerns make the same list of things?

And if you think they won't, that the lists will have little relation to each other, you have a nobel prize if you carry out that experience and it gets repeated by scientists.

If you think the lists will primarily the same, why? Given that the quantum foam could go in any direction and these minds will have all sorts of different histories and expectations?

No links that you assert explain it all to us. Your words, explain this.
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 10:10 am But I am interested in how VA reconciles this.
But what if it never occured to him to reconcile things, because he has no concept of consistency?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8534
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:06 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 10:10 am But I am interested in how VA reconciles this.
But what if it never occured to him to reconcile things, because he has no concept of consistency?
I'm not sure if you're (drily) insulting his position(s) or saying this is part of his position. That's the state of all this.
But to take your question at face value my answer would be:
then he's likely got a problem with objective moral facts. Because there you are asserting a consistancy, and one that traverses cultures and even mentally ill people, being objective and all.
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:24 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:06 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 10:10 am But I am interested in how VA reconciles this.
But what if it never occured to him to reconcile things, because he has no concept of consistency?
I'm not sure if you're (drily) insulting his position(s) or saying this is part of his position. That's the state of all this.
But to take your question at face value my answer would be:
then he's likely got a problem with objective moral facts. Because there you are asserting a consistancy, and one that traverses cultures and even mentally ill people, being objective and all.
I mean, it just hit me that he can have all these various views that are inconsistent with each other, and isn't bothered by that in the slightest. And he has never been able to construct a syllogism that's actually logical. Maybe he simply can't comprehend contradictions, inconsistencies at all. He is a logic-less male?

In which case his problem with objective facts can't be the consistency, because to take issue with consistency, one has to be able to grasp consistency. I guess.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8534
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:37 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:24 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:06 pm
But what if it never occured to him to reconcile things, because he has no concept of consistency?
I'm not sure if you're (drily) insulting his position(s) or saying this is part of his position. That's the state of all this.
But to take your question at face value my answer would be:
then he's likely got a problem with objective moral facts. Because there you are asserting a consistancy, and one that traverses cultures and even mentally ill people, being objective and all.
I mean, it just hit me that he can have all these various views that are inconsistent with each other, and isn't bothered by that in the slightest. And he has never been able to construct a syllogism that's actually logical. Maybe he simply can't comprehend contradictions, inconsistencies at all. He is a logic-less male?

In which case his problem with objective facts can't be the consistency, because to take issue with consistency, one has to be able to grasp consistency. I guess.
I was upset by his latest response to me above, because while one can have an interesting discussion about what it means if different cultures and mentally ill people see different things in the rooms and come up with different lists, he should realize that his version of antirealism should lead us to think even people from the same culture, class, race and who are not mentally ill should still be all over the place with the list of things in the room.

They would all have different expectations, they would all have different histories. And the possibilities for what could be put in the room are vast. In his antirealism there is quantum foam which gets cocreated into the experience of something by the mind.

Why would all these different minds come up with the same list?

That he didn't see how his counterargument didn't explain this consistancy strikes me a convenient. I have to keep chasing him down. Just like he wanted me to go off and read Wittgenstein who is also not going to explain that consistancy.

My best sense is that some form of anti-realism is correct. That's a gut sense. I am going to take a stab at making a best case exploration of it.
I don't think, as you say, his diverse set of positions and arguments fit together at all. If he'd just drop the certainty and explore I'd be right with him.
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:49 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:37 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:24 pm I'm not sure if you're (drily) insulting his position(s) or saying this is part of his position. That's the state of all this.
But to take your question at face value my answer would be:
then he's likely got a problem with objective moral facts. Because there you are asserting a consistancy, and one that traverses cultures and even mentally ill people, being objective and all.
I mean, it just hit me that he can have all these various views that are inconsistent with each other, and isn't bothered by that in the slightest. And he has never been able to construct a syllogism that's actually logical. Maybe he simply can't comprehend contradictions, inconsistencies at all. He is a logic-less male?

In which case his problem with objective facts can't be the consistency, because to take issue with consistency, one has to be able to grasp consistency. I guess.
I was upset by his latest response to me above, because while one can have an interesting discussion about what it means if different cultures and mentally ill people see different things in the rooms and come up with different lists, he should realize that his version of antirealism should lead us to think even people from the same culture, class, race and who are not mentally ill should still be all over the place with the list of things in the room.

They would all have different expectations, they would all have different histories. And the possibilities for what could be put in the room are vast. In his antirealism there is quantum foam which gets cocreated into the experience of something by the mind.

Why would all these different minds come up with the same list?

That he didn't see how his counterargument didn't explain this consistancy strikes me a convenient. I have to keep chasing him down. Just like he wanted me to go off and read Wittgenstein who is also not going to explain that consistancy.

My best sense is that some form of anti-realism is correct. That's a gut sense. I am going to take a stab at making a best case exploration of it.
I don't think, as you say, his diverse set of positions and arguments fit together at all. If he'd just drop the certainty and explore I'd be right with him.
I still think he's a solipsist who usually acts like he wasn't a solipsists because of his "science-FSK". There are fundamentally no other minds to him, there are only minds to him through the "science-FSK", where people will find the same things in the room, so the lists should be the same (give or take).

Of course negative noumenon and science-FSK are completely incompatible with each other, which I'm trying to make him admit.

I think a very awkward version of anti-realism is probably correct in an extradimensional way, but theat really only concerns one or a few people. That's the part of philosophy we don't speak about. Philosophy should be restricted to goofing around about simpler issues. The world doesn't need more darkness and despair.
Darkneos
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2023 12:39 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Darkneos »

Considering they’re using quantum foam theory incorrectly it wouldn’t really surprise me
Darkneos
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2023 12:39 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Darkneos »

Atla wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 4:04 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:49 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:37 pm
I mean, it just hit me that he can have all these various views that are inconsistent with each other, and isn't bothered by that in the slightest. And he has never been able to construct a syllogism that's actually logical. Maybe he simply can't comprehend contradictions, inconsistencies at all. He is a logic-less male?

In which case his problem with objective facts can't be the consistency, because to take issue with consistency, one has to be able to grasp consistency. I guess.
I was upset by his latest response to me above, because while one can have an interesting discussion about what it means if different cultures and mentally ill people see different things in the rooms and come up with different lists, he should realize that his version of antirealism should lead us to think even people from the same culture, class, race and who are not mentally ill should still be all over the place with the list of things in the room.

They would all have different expectations, they would all have different histories. And the possibilities for what could be put in the room are vast. In his antirealism there is quantum foam which gets cocreated into the experience of something by the mind.

Why would all these different minds come up with the same list?

That he didn't see how his counterargument didn't explain this consistancy strikes me a convenient. I have to keep chasing him down. Just like he wanted me to go off and read Wittgenstein who is also not going to explain that consistancy.

My best sense is that some form of anti-realism is correct. That's a gut sense. I am going to take a stab at making a best case exploration of it.
I don't think, as you say, his diverse set of positions and arguments fit together at all. If he'd just drop the certainty and explore I'd be right with him.
I still think he's a solipsist who usually acts like he wasn't a solipsists because of his "science-FSK". There are fundamentally no other minds to him, there are only minds to him through the "science-FSK", where people will find the same things in the room, so the lists should be the same (give or take).

Of course negative noumenon and science-FSK are completely incompatible with each other, which I'm trying to make him admit.

I think a very awkward version of anti-realism is probably correct in an extradimensional way, but theat really only concerns one or a few people. That's the part of philosophy we don't speak about. Philosophy should be restricted to goofing around about simpler issues. The world doesn't need more darkness and despair.
It’s odd you’d mention VA being a solipsist if you think anti realism might be true.

From what I’ve seen though there’s no real reason to think anti realism might be true. Even if it were it wouldn’t lead to darkness or despair.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Upset?? when one is so ignorant; this has no room in a philosophical discussion; members who are easily upset often go into a rage [explicitly or subliminally] and do crazy offensive things. This is why I put those 'upset' in 'ignore'.

Let's even give a concrete example: I put the following in a room in a field. A stuffed horse, a computer, a set of big fluffy red dice, two chairs, a large painting on the wall of a dog staring with big eyes, and a bed in the room.
Why will 100 non-mentally ill Westerns make the same list of things?


I have already given the fundamental reasons why the 100 people will produce the same list of things, i.e.
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.
viewtopic.php?p=654327#p654327
That their human nature is universal, same brain structures, same pattern recognition faculty, same cognitive set up, same realization processes, same linguistic faculties are critical to why they will produce a list with the same name to those things in the room.

It is the same inherent human nature [biological and psychological] that all the 100 men shared that they produce the same listing.
Bats or other non-humans would produce a different lists [assuming they can list things].

I did not use the term 'quantum foam' rather I had used a 'soup of particles and quarks' in the metaphorical sense.

Here is the confusions from the rigid dogmatic hardcore philosophical realists;
There are many types of realists and many types of anti-realists.
Also an anti-realist can also be a realist in certain context.
A Kantian anti-realist is also an empirical realist.
However, ultimately, empirical-realism is subsumed within Kantian-anti-realism.
Kant in CRP wrote:The Transcendental Idealist [anti-philosophical_realist] is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.
CPR A371
see also:
A Realist is also an Idealist [anti-realist] in different contexts
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

Note also;
Reality as conditioned within a human-based FSK comes in various perspectives, i.e.
1. Common Sense
2. Conventional Sense -e.g. Newtonian, Einsteinian
3. QM sense.

Thus for a Kantian, the common and conventional sense are realized within empirical-realism while in the QM sense, it is realized with the anti-philosophical_realism perspective.

In the case of the 100 non-mentally ill Westerns listing things in a room, that is done within the common and conventional sense not QM.
In this case, what is relevant to the Kantian would be empirical realism.
Thus what is listed can be empirically verified and justified as real within the science-FSK.

The p-realists will list the same things in the room, but the difference is the p-realist adopt their listing within the hardcore ideology of philosophical realism with absolute mind-independence.

On the other hand, the Kantians empirical realists will list those things and recognize them as merely relatively mind-independent subject and subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [anti-PhilosophicalRealism].

Re "quantum soup" of particles and quarks, the p-realists will insist on the absolute mind-independent ideology while the anti-p-realist do not.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Surely the name of the things listed by the 100 people are conditioned upon the "rules" as in Wittgenstein's Language game.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I checked with ChatGPT [with reservation] on the issue; it is the same with what I had responded, in particular in terms of the same human nature, biology, cognitive abilities.

ChatGPT Responded:
"Quote" The reason why the 100 people will likely produce the same listing of the names of the 20 things in the room can be attributed to several factors:

Shared language and cultural background: Assuming that the 100 individuals have the same upbringing and culture, they are likely to share a common language and vocabulary. They would have learned the same names for common objects like chairs, tables, apples, bells, etc. This shared linguistic and cultural background facilitates a common understanding of the objects in the room.

Human perception and cognition: Humans generally perceive and categorize objects in similar ways due to our common biology and cognitive abilities. The objects in the room have distinct physical features that can be easily recognized and named by individuals with normal perception. For example, a chair typically has a seat, backrest, and legs, and these features are readily identifiable. The shared perceptual and cognitive abilities of the individuals enable them to identify and name the objects consistently.

Social conventions and linguistic norms: Language is a social construct that relies on shared conventions and norms. When people learn a language, they acquire the agreed-upon meanings and associations attached to words. In this case, the 100 people share the same linguistic norms and conventions, which dictate that certain objects are referred to by specific names. This conformity to social and linguistic norms further contributes to the consistency in the naming of objects.

Regarding your mention of Wittgenstein's language game, it may provide some insights into how language is used in a particular context. Wittgenstein argued that language is a form of social activity, and its meaning is derived from its use within a specific language game or social context.
In the given scenario, the individuals are engaging in a language game by providing a list of objects they see in the room. The consistency in their naming can be seen as a manifestation of their shared understanding of the language game rules and their adherence to the conventional meanings associated with the words used to describe the objects.

While Wittgenstein's ideas can shed light on the role of language in this scenario, the main factors contributing to the individuals producing the same listing of names are the shared language and cultural background, human perception and cognition, and social conventions and linguistic norms.
....................."Unquote"
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Atla »

And this why I reject the idea that nothing can act like something. In some anti-realist interpretations of QM, nothing acts as if it would follow the Schrödinger equation. And in VA's negative noumenon, the appearances of matter act as if they were part of an entire material universe, which universe would be mostly noumenal however to us, so we simply don't posit the noumenal parts. It's like solipsism for solipsism's sake.
Darkneos
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2023 12:39 am

Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Post by Darkneos »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:01 am I checked with ChatGPT [with reservation] on the issue; it is the same with what I had responded, in particular in terms of the same human nature, biology, cognitive abilities.

ChatGPT Responded:
"Quote" The reason why the 100 people will likely produce the same listing of the names of the 20 things in the room can be attributed to several factors:

Shared language and cultural background: Assuming that the 100 individuals have the same upbringing and culture, they are likely to share a common language and vocabulary. They would have learned the same names for common objects like chairs, tables, apples, bells, etc. This shared linguistic and cultural background facilitates a common understanding of the objects in the room.

Human perception and cognition: Humans generally perceive and categorize objects in similar ways due to our common biology and cognitive abilities. The objects in the room have distinct physical features that can be easily recognized and named by individuals with normal perception. For example, a chair typically has a seat, backrest, and legs, and these features are readily identifiable. The shared perceptual and cognitive abilities of the individuals enable them to identify and name the objects consistently.

Social conventions and linguistic norms: Language is a social construct that relies on shared conventions and norms. When people learn a language, they acquire the agreed-upon meanings and associations attached to words. In this case, the 100 people share the same linguistic norms and conventions, which dictate that certain objects are referred to by specific names. This conformity to social and linguistic norms further contributes to the consistency in the naming of objects.

Regarding your mention of Wittgenstein's language game, it may provide some insights into how language is used in a particular context. Wittgenstein argued that language is a form of social activity, and its meaning is derived from its use within a specific language game or social context.
In the given scenario, the individuals are engaging in a language game by providing a list of objects they see in the room. The consistency in their naming can be seen as a manifestation of their shared understanding of the language game rules and their adherence to the conventional meanings associated with the words used to describe the objects.

While Wittgenstein's ideas can shed light on the role of language in this scenario, the main factors contributing to the individuals producing the same listing of names are the shared language and cultural background, human perception and cognition, and social conventions and linguistic norms.
....................."Unquote"
ChatGPT is a very unreliable source of information and it has been prone to just making things up.

Of course the shorter answer to the question is that there is an external and independent reality, the answers given above aren't really relevant.
Post Reply