Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am

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."

I have addressed your ignorance of the above in this thread.
Kant: Absurd -Appearance without anything that Appears
viewtopic.php?t=40828

Don't talk about Kant until you have read the CPR more that 20 times, preferable up to 50 times.

Listen you little Planck-length sized wannabe philosopher standing on the surface of a quark in a proton of an atom in a molecule of a microbe situated on the outer rim of a gnat's anus,...

...I'll talk about whomever, whenever I want.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:06 pm 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,...

Strawman.
I did not state "only" ..
I stated all [unless there are severe damage to the necessary parts] humans are effected by the mask illusion.

You stated the following in your OP...

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.

...which clearly implies that it would seem that "only" the schizophrenics aren't fooled by the mask illusion, and that the rest of humanity (8 billion) are delusional.

In which case, I am simply repeating what you implied in your OP.

So don't hand me this crap about me creating a "strawman."

Furthermore, in regard to the above, as per usual, you completely ignored the larger point I was making. So go re-read it 20 times (preferably up to 50 more times) until you understand it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:06 pm Is it good for a human to see that reality is an illusion, or is it a bad thing?

It is a good thing for a human to see that reality is an illusion as one alternative perspective but not all perspectives.
However it is delusional for a human [like yourself] to insist there is an ultimate mind-independent entity [your eye-thingy] behind those perspectives [illusion and otherwise]; that is the mother of all illusions.

Btw, I will use my discretion to ignore your post as long as you continue to throw all sort of 'put downs', silly remarks and getting too emotional. Why the need for all these other than is driven by some personal psychology?

I resort to insults because you completely ignore all reasonable and logical counters to your claims. And stop pretending that you don't insult others, because you are constantly calling those who disagree with you: "...ignorant, and stupid, and philosophical gnats..."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am I don't mind if you critique or condemn my intelligence and philosophical knowledge with justifications.

You ignore justifications, hence the "left, right, and center" bashings, insults, and whatever else it takes to get through to you.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am

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...

I have addressed your ignorance of the above in this thread.
Kant: Absurd -Appearance without anything that Appears
viewtopic.php?t=40828

Don't talk about Kant until you have read the CPR more that 20 times, preferable up to 50 times.

Listen you little Planck-length sized wannabe philosopher standing on the surface of a quark in a proton of an atom in a molecule of a microbe situated on the outer rim of a gnat's anus,...

...I'll talk about whomever, whenever I want.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:06 pm 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,...

Strawman.
I did not state "only" ..
I stated all [unless there are severe damage to the necessary parts] humans are effected by the mask illusion.

You stated the following in your OP...

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.

...which clearly implies that it would seem that "only" the schizophrenics aren't fooled by the mask illusion, and that the rest of humanity (8 billion) are delusional.

In which case, I am simply repeating what you implied in your OP.

So don't hand me this crap about me creating a "strawman."

Furthermore, in regard to the above, as per usual, you completely ignored the larger point I was making. So go re-read it 20 times (preferably up to 50 more times) until you understand it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:06 pm Is it good for a human to see that reality is an illusion, or is it a bad thing?

It is a good thing for a human to see that reality is an illusion as one alternative perspective but not all perspectives.
However it is delusional for a human [like yourself] to insist there is an ultimate mind-independent entity [your eye-thingy] behind those perspectives [illusion and otherwise]; that is the mother of all illusions.

Btw, I will use my discretion to ignore your post as long as you continue to throw all sort of 'put downs', silly remarks and getting too emotional. Why the need for all these other than is driven by some personal psychology?

I resort to insults because you completely ignore all reasonable and logical counters to your claims. And stop pretending that you don't insult others, because you are constantly calling those who disagree with you: "...ignorant, and stupid, and philosophical gnats..."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:00 am I don't mind if you critique or condemn my intelligence and philosophical knowledge with justifications.

You ignore justifications, hence the "left, right, and center" bashings, insults, and whatever else it takes to get through to you.
_______

You can continue to bark as you like.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:56 am You and VA are a real hoot!

In the last few days, you both basically swore that you were going to ignore each other and not respond to each other's posts, then the comedic voice with the French accent pipes-in with...

Ah, some addictions are hard to give up.

...and you are now talking to each other like an old married couple who - due to senility - completely forgot about last night's quarrel.

Oh well, that's okay.

Seeing how we are all just a bunch of knuckleheads having some fun here, we should never take ourselves too seriously, right?

I'm looking for that balance point where frustration is short and expectations are low. There's this naive part of me that thinks someone might change a habit in response to something I or others say, online no less. Not change philosophical position. Not admit to a core mistake in their way of thinking. But just something like....Hey, you're right that line of argument had a significant problem.

I'd probably be touched seeing someone else with the kind of naivte I have here.

(I have experienced this with some people online, but it's rare)

Amazing T-Rex Illusion!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QcyW-qTUg

This T-Rex Illusion is where the T-Rex is actually fixed but when one moves from to left to right or vice-versa, the head of the T-Rex appear to move eye to eye with the observer and it 'appear' to be very realistic.

This is a clue to
what is deemed to be real as absolutely mind-independent as claimed by the philosophical realist could be the same effect of realness like the effects above but at another level of reality.

For Hume, Kant and constructivists, they are convinced there are no absolutely mind-independent reality.
Kant and constructivists claimed reality and things emerged and are realized with human participation prior to perception, knowing and describing the thing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:21 am Amazing T-Rex Illusion!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QcyW-qTUg

This T-Rex Illusion is where the T-Rex is actually fixed but when one moves from to left to right or vice-versa, the head of the T-Rex appear to move eye to eye with the observer and it 'appear' to be very realistic.

This is a clue to
what is deemed to be real as absolutely mind-independent as claimed by the philosophical realist could be the same effect of realness like the effects above but at another level of reality.

For Hume, Kant and constructivists, they are convinced there are no absolutely mind-independent reality.
Kant and constructivists claimed reality and things emerged and are realized with human participation prior to perception, knowing and describing the thing.

I've got that T-rex on my bookshelf - love it. I just had another look with both eyes, and until you insist using your brain that u r being fooled to believe the 't-rex' has his head moving ...it does turn according to some illiusion.
It works a lot easier when you close one eye.

..but seriously, U R a gnat of contemplation with regards to God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:21 am Amazing T-Rex Illusion!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QcyW-qTUg

This T-Rex Illusion is where the T-Rex is actually fixed but when one moves from to left to right or vice-versa, the head of the T-Rex appear to move eye to eye with the observer and it 'appear' to be very realistic.

This is a clue to
what is deemed to be real as absolutely mind-independent as claimed by the philosophical realist could be the same effect of realness like the effects above but at another level of reality.

For Hume, Kant and constructivists, they are convinced there are no absolutely mind-independent reality.
Kant and constructivists claimed reality and things emerged and are realized with human participation prior to perception, knowing and describing the thing.

All of which needs the noumenal "actually fixed" T-rex as referent, so it directly refutes your (and Hume, Kant) philosophy. We know something about this kind of noumenon. So it's all evidence for indirect realism.

Why are you so stupid now that you are actually wandering into the science of perception? It completely refutes your philosophy so you need to AVOID it at all cost.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 3:19 amI have critiqued Philosophical Realism in many threads;

How does claiming that you've critiqued philosophical realism in other threads justify the fact that the opening post of this very thread has no substance whatesoever and that it's merely a personal attack on Peter Holmes and philosophical realists in general?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:03 pmCan you define the term "mind-independent"? What does it mean for something to be mind-independent?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 3:26 amNote,

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

Another view of mind-independent is perception-independent.

At the extreme of mind-independence it means reality and things [e.g. the moon] will exist even if there are no humans [no human minds] to interact with them.

There is a difference between "a thing that can exist in the absence of any mind perceiving it" and "a thing that is not an appearance in the eye of the beholder". Do you agree with that?

If so, which of the two things is to be called a mind-independent thing? Both?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:21 am Amazing T-Rex Illusion!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QcyW-qTUg

This T-Rex Illusion is where the T-Rex is actually fixed but when one moves from to left to right or vice-versa, the head of the T-Rex appear to move eye to eye with the observer and it 'appear' to be very realistic.

This is a clue to
what is deemed to be real as absolutely mind-independent as claimed by the philosophical realist could be the same effect of realness like the effects above but at another level of reality.

For Hume, Kant and constructivists, they are convinced there are no absolutely mind-independent reality.
Kant and constructivists claimed reality and things emerged and are realized with human participation prior to perception, knowing and describing the thing.

All of which needs the noumenal "actually fixed" T-rex as referent, so it directly refutes your (and Hume, Kant) philosophy. We know something about this kind of noumenon. So it's all evidence for indirect realism.

Why are you so stupid now that you are actually wandering into the science of perception? It completely refutes your philosophy so you need to AVOID it at all cost.

If little V wants to talk about how humans can be fooled by visual illusions, then instead of using old time examples of rotating concave masks, or "amazing" T Rexes, he should be suggesting that everyone try sticking their head in one of these things...







...and witness just how far humans have progressed in creating some truly amazing visual illusions.

And the point is that all of the types of illusions being discussed in this thread...

(be they via manmade VR headset technology, or even the everyday illusory "appearances" of the phenomenal features of the universe)

...what they all have in common is a requirement of some sort of "real" and "existing" source of information from which the illusions are derived.

In other words, even though little V might be right in insisting that the moon might not actually be there in its "moonish" form when we are not looking,...

...nevertheless, for it to so consistently and steadfastly always be there when we do look, means that "something" about its very being is real and continues to exist independent of any interaction with us humans.

If not, then regardless of little V's protestations over me referencing that old Kant [PBUH] quote, again, we would be...

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

Part of the problem here is that I can't make head nor tail of where little V actually stands on these issues.

And that's because he so thoroughly obfuscates his arguments in the smoke and mirrors of his proprietary (made up) "FSK" jargon, that he (as noted by you and others) is able to weasel his way out of any refutations of his flawed theories.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:09 pm If little V wants to talk about how humans can be fooled by visual illusions, then instead of using old time examples of rotating concave masks, or "amazing" T Rexes, he should be suggesting that everyone try sticking their head in one of these things...

.

...and witness just how far humans have progressed in creating some truly amazing visual illusions.

And the point is that all of the types of illusions being discussed in this thread...

(be they via manmade VR headset technology, or even the everyday illusory "appearances" of the phenomenal features of the universe)

...what they all have in common is a requirement of some sort of "real" and "existing" source of information from which the illusions are derived.

In other words, even though little V might be right in insisting that the moon might not actually be there in its "moonish" form when we are not looking,...

...nevertheless, for it to so consistently and steadfastly always be there when we do look, means that "something" about its very being is real and continues to exist independent of any interaction with us humans.

If not, then regardless of little V's protestations over me referencing that old Kant [PBUH] quote, again, we would be...

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

Part of the problem here is that I can't make head nor tail of where little V actually stands on these issues.

And that's because he so thoroughly obfuscates his arguments in the smoke and mirrors of his proprietary (made up) "FSK" jargon, that he (as noted by you and others) is able to weasel his way out of any refutations of his flawed theories.
_______

If anything, shouldn't little V's consensus-FSK-FSR-proper-MickeyMouse-nonsense conclude that the T-rex really keeps an eye contact with us? Without an objective reality, we are left with consensus opinion, so the majority is right and the schizophrenics are making it up.. or even worse, we are left with solipsism

As for the Kant quote, I'll grant that he never said that the noumenon exists (he was 100% agnostic, little V is just lying about this), but he said that we need to think the noumenon anyway. Which is sort of an admission that his whole philosophy is an exercise in shooting oneself in the foot.

Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:28 pm Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

Personally, I see things back where Descartes started. If we go further back than that, we're going to be believing in "demons", "witches" and all manner of other things that have already been dealt with and continue to be dealt with in different ways under different names. I mean, if people want to rerun the past instead of moving forward, then that's fine. Just don't come knocking on my door accusing me of "heresy" because I don't believe "Jesus" = God.

I mean, maybe our universities are pumping out too many of us who can't work a steady job digging ditches or planting trees. Apparently, we're churning out people who have time to come up with "theories" about everything, including "replacement", "CRT" and other stuff that seems more or less self-serving in various ways.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:10 pmIf anything, shouldn't little V's consensus-FSK-FSR-proper-MickeyMouse-nonsense conclude that the T-rex really keeps an eye contact with us? Without an objective reality, we are left with consensus opinion, so the majority is right and the schizophrenics are making it up.. or even worse, we are left with solipsism

It depends on what he means by "mind-independent". If a mind-independent thing, as defined by him, is a thing that is not "an appearance in the eye of the beholder", which means, it is not someone's perception, then it follows that what he's saying is that only perceptions exist. As such, a T-rex toy does not really exist because a T-rex toy is not a perception -- it is a three-dimensional physical object. Instead, what exists is a belief that a T-rex toy exists and a belief that the toy is looking at us. Both beliefs are erroneous, of course, but they exist nonetheless.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:42 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 3:19 amI have critiqued Philosophical Realism in many threads;

How does claiming that you've critiqued philosophical realism in other threads justify the fact that the opening post of this very thread has no substance whatesoever and that it's merely a personal attack on Peter Holmes and philosophical realists in general?

Where is the personal attack of PH and philosophical realists [PRs]?

I am reject and arguing PRs view of mind-independence as illusory and pending arguments from them.
I am stating PRs are thinking very narrowly, shallowly, primordially and dogmatically, this is not a personal attack.

If there is any 'personal attack' that is because it a counter tit-for-tat and not initiated by me.