Philosophy Now Forum

That implies the mind independent existence of foam. We can't have that.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 3:16 pm That implies the mind independent existence of foam. We can't have that.

No, so really when the first organism arose, the universe arose also. Nothing---->organism with universe it needs and is needed by

A step backwards?

I dunno!

The fabric of ...

Spacetime? No, no, not that!

What then?

We need a new ...

Car?

Kinda!

I know what you mean! What kinda car?

Hard to say. One that'll take us where we (koff, koff) go?

A sensible thing ta say.

Thanks.

De nada.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:39 pm 4. How does reality surprise us, collectively? Humanity was apparently surprised to find that heavier objects don't fall faster, when Galileo started dropping things off towers. If reality is being co-created, things like gravity, relativity, chemistry, quantum physics - they point to it at least not being co-created by the most popular ideas. Which people manifested these things into reality, overriding popular beliefs?

4.1 Why are popular superstitions not being manifested into reality?

You are assuming humans are Gods with omniscient, that what humans deemed as 'reality' is the ultimately-reality regardless of whether there are any living things to realize it or not.

The point is a one-celled living organism will "cognize" reality relative his its nature.
Humans will cognize relative to its nature.
Aliens [possible to exist] 100 [1000 or >] times which are more cognizant will cognize relative to its nature.

Humans [Philosophical realists] will extrapolate there is an ultimate objective reality other than what they are perceiving.
This is what you are doing..
you are assuming humans are Gods with omniscient, that what humans deemed as 'reality' is the ultimately-reality regardless of whether there are any living things to realize it or not.
WHO ARE YOU [as a philosophical realist] to insist you are right?

The fact is you as a philosophical realist are insisting upon the above of a mind-independent reality is purely due to psychology driven by an evolution default of always focusing on the external to facilitate survival with neural algorithms inherited from ancestors [LUCA] dating back to >3.5 billion years ago.

Obvious a "focus on the external" is critical for survival but it need not be an "ism" i.e. the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism.

On finer reflective thinking, it is more realistic to accept that humans are intricately part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is, thus not a mind-independent reality in the ultimate sense.

When humans 'discover' facts, truths and knowledge, it is always conditioned upon a human-based-FSK conditioned upon human nature which is a priori conditioned upon 200K history of human evolution, 3.5 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billion years of physical expansion from the Big Bang.

If viruses, bacteria, animals [bats] or aliens [100 or >1000x more cognizant] were to realize reality, it must be qualified to their nature [conditions] and none of them can claim there is one universal objective reality.
In this sense, they are the co-creators [intertwined with] of their own relative reality.

The question is,
why must one [all other cognizant organisms] insist there is an ultimate objective independent of mind at all like the philosophical realists driven by psychology.

I argued, nothing is lost if we give up the idea of an ultimate mind-independent reality.
The only problem is, if a philosophical realist were to give up philosophical realism, he is likely to suffer a cold-turkey from cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.

I think you're having confusions on what our positions are.

You seem to think "the way humans perceived and conceive of reality isn't reality-as-it-is" is inconsistent with anything I've said. It's not.

And, the leap from that to "there is no objective reality" is not justified.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:05 am I think you're having confusions on what our positions are.

You seem to think "the way humans perceived and conceive of reality isn't reality-as-it-is" is inconsistent with anything I've said. It's not.

To avoid confusion, can you explain your position then?

My understanding of your position is from your stance that,

"The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

which imply the moon exists independent of human minds, thus philosophical realism, i.e. there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:46 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:05 am I think you're having confusions on what our positions are.

You seem to think "the way humans perceived and conceive of reality isn't reality-as-it-is" is inconsistent with anything I've said. It's not.

To avoid confusion, can you explain your position then?

My understanding of your position is from your stance that,

"The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

which imply the moon exists independent of human minds, thus philosophical realism, i.e. there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

In the context of our conversations, my primary root position is "there are objective truths, whether any particular human knows it or not, and human beings can be wrong about what those truths are".

It COULD be the truth that this is a brain in a vat situation. If it was, it would be true *despite me not knowing it*. Everything I think I know would be wrong, BUT there would still be an objective reality, somewhere, it's just an objective reality I don't know anything about.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:39 pm 4.1 Why are popular superstitions not being manifested into reality?

It is not a question of 'being manifested into reality' but rather what are their degrees of objectivity re reality.

My principle;
ALL facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK with its FSK qualified reality.
The most credible and reliable FSK is the human-based science FSK which is the standard [100/100 objectivity] all other FSKs are evaluated upon.

In this sense, popular superstitions are conditioned upon their a specific human-based FSK with its FSK qualified reality.
As such, theists who rely on a human based theistic FSK will claim their human-based-FSK God is real.
But a a human based theistic FSK is grounded on faith not on empirical evidences as in the science-FSK, thus its degree of objectivity of reality that God exists as real would be say 0.001/100.

That sounds like a bunch of very realist stuff to say to me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:46 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:05 am I think you're having confusions on what our positions are.

You seem to think "the way humans perceived and conceive of reality isn't reality-as-it-is" is inconsistent with anything I've said. It's not.

To avoid confusion, can you explain your position then?

My understanding of your position is from your stance that,

"The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

which imply the moon exists independent of human minds, thus philosophical realism, i.e. there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

In the context of our conversations, my primary root position is "there are objective truths, whether any particular human knows it or not, and human beings can be wrong about what those truths are".

It COULD be the truth that this is a brain in a vat situation. If it was, it would be true *despite me not knowing it*.
Everything I think I know would be wrong, BUT there would still be an objective reality, somewhere, it's just an objective reality I don't know anything about.

This is what I am questioning about, i.e.

FH: BUT there would still be an objective reality, somewhere, it's just an objective reality I don't know anything about.

You are asserting with 100% certainty without reservation 'there must be an objective reality somewhere' that you don't know anything about.
This is like, in one aspect, you are a God within omniscient power to be so confident of your claim.

My further question is,
since you are not likely to know anything about it, why not forget about and do not insist there is such an objective reality.
What has you to lose if you give it up?

But I know as a philosophical realist you cannot give it up because you will suffer the subliminal cognitive dissonances and its associated pains.
Philosophical realism is thus therapeutic for you to cling on to.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:05 am That sounds like a bunch of very realist stuff to say to me.

How can the above be philosophical realism?
Again,

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:10 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:46 am
To avoid confusion, can you explain your position then?

My understanding of your position is from your stance that,

"The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

which imply the moon exists independent of human minds, thus philosophical realism, i.e. there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

In the context of our conversations, my primary root position is "there are objective truths, whether any particular human knows it or not, and human beings can be wrong about what those truths are".

It COULD be the truth that this is a brain in a vat situation. If it was, it would be true *despite me not knowing it*.
Everything I think I know would be wrong, BUT there would still be an objective reality, somewhere, it's just an objective reality I don't know anything about.

This is what I am questioning about, i.e.

FH: BUT there would still be an objective reality, somewhere, it's just an objective reality I don't know anything about.

You are asserting with 100% certainty without reservation 'there must be an objective reality somewhere' that you don't know anything about.
This is like, in one aspect, you are a God within omniscient power to be so confident of your claim.

My further question is,
since you are not likely to know anything about it, why not forget about and do not insist there is such an objective reality.
What has you to lose if you give it up?

But I know as a philosophical realist you cannot give it up because you will suffer the subliminal cognitive dissonances and its associated pains.
Philosophical realism is thus therapeutic for you to cling on to.

Yeah, I can psychologise silly stuff about you too. You're an anti realist because it hurts to much to think it was part of real reality that you got molested at a Chucky cheese. You just can't bear the reality of that, so you're trying to convince yourself nothing is real.

We can make up silly psychological shit about each other if you want, I don't expect it to be very productive

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:10 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:53 am
In the context of our conversations, my primary root position is "there are objective truths, whether any particular human knows it or not, and human beings can be wrong about what those truths are".

It COULD be the truth that this is a brain in a vat situation. If it was, it would be true *despite me not knowing it*.
Everything I think I know would be wrong, BUT there would still be an objective reality, somewhere, it's just an objective reality I don't know anything about.

This is what I am questioning about, i.e.

FH: BUT there would still be an objective reality, somewhere, it's just an objective reality I don't know anything about.

You are asserting with 100% certainty without reservation 'there must be an objective reality somewhere' that you don't know anything about.
This is like, in one aspect, you are a God within omniscient power to be so confident of your claim.

My further question is,
since you are not likely to know anything about it, why not forget about and do not insist there is such an objective reality.
What has you to lose if you give it up?

But I know as a philosophical realist you cannot give it up because you will suffer the subliminal cognitive dissonances and its associated pains.
Philosophical realism is thus therapeutic for you to cling on to.

Yeah, I can psychologise silly stuff about you too. You're an anti realist because it hurts to much to think it was part of real reality that you got molested at a Chucky cheese. You just can't bear the reality of that, so you're trying to convince yourself nothing is real.

We can make up silly psychological shit about each other if you want, I don't expect it to be very productive

Btw, I accept there is an external reality within common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics, but I don't take them into a "ism" like philosophical realism.

I have no issue if you want to make claims about my psychological state regarding my anti-philosophical realism but you need to provide rational justification for it.

I need to provide rational justification but you don't. Hmm.