Philosophy Now Forum

Ran across this forum again, I see it's still as entertaining as ever. Guess I'll stay for a few comments.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:27 am This is a serious conundrum why a God's Eye View i.e. an absolutely independent view, is an impossibility.
This is the reason why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to avoid chasing illusions and so, to facilitate the progress of knowledge and the well-being of humanity.

As I had stated, why you are so dogmatic with the realist's mind-independent view is due to psychology driven by a primal evolution default which must be modulated for progress.

Ask people, what they think "independent of the human conditions" or even "independent of the human mind" means. I don't think you'll find a single one who will realize that you are talking about the God's Eye View problem.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Is there anyone here who realized that this is what VA has been talking about all along?

How is that even "realism"? They do overlap, but not completely? What if I believe in an independent God's Eye View (realism), but also hold the the independent reality is an illusion, or it's not as percieved etc. (anti-realism)?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:27 am
Yes, I can imagine the above imaginations

Fantastic! Then you can ostensibly understand why all these word games toward deductive proofs of what you're trying to prove actually don't serve to make that world view impossible.

I can't imagine a monster with 2 legs and no legs, because that's contradictory.

I can't imagine a drawer with everything in it and nothing in it, because that's contradictory.

You and I both CAN imagine a world where realism is the case, and souls don't exist, because regardless of the word games, it is not in fact contradictory.

The end

Not too sure of your point.

What is imagination is only restricted to images of possible experiences.

Whatever is contradictory is merely a thought but not of possible experiences, thus, cannot be imagined.

Yes, realism can be imagined,
but what [realism] is imagined in this case is ultimately not independent of the human mind.
and so, ultimately the supposed realism [mind independent] is not mind-independent.

In other words, one need mind-interdependence to imagine mind-independence [realism].

So you agree that "I believe in realism" and "I don't believe in souls" are not contradictory beliefs to hold simultaneously. Fantastic.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:03 am So you agree that "I believe in realism" and "I don't believe in souls" are not contradictory beliefs to hold simultaneously. Fantastic.

Again I am not too sure of your point.

The main tenet of Philosophical Realism is mind-independence*.
* the typical reference is "mind-independent" but ultimately is it "human-independent".

A Philosophical Realist [1] believe the existence of an apple is mind-independent but [2] is not a theist who believe in a mind-independent God or Soul.
So it is not contradictory to hold both beliefs.

My point is Philosophical Realism in the ultimate sense as an ideology is not realistic nor tenable.
Philosophical Realism is a evolutionary default banking on an illusion, albeit a useful illusion in various pre-ultimate sense.

Note this;
Evolution Hides the Truth to facilitate Survival
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJukJiNEl4o

• Most of us believe that we see reality as it is. But we don’t. [1:14]
  Donald describes how mathematical game theory explains natural selection [3:42]
  Donald talks about a game he created to simulate evolution [9:33]
  
  Seeing the truth and seeing what you need to survive are very different things [13:51]
  Evolution gave us the equivalent of a desktop interface, not the truth [18:11]
  
  Every creature has a different user interface and perceives a different reality [24:57]
  Science progresses because we push our best theories to their limit [29:05]
  If we let go of logic and reasoning, then we have nothing left [32:10]
  There will always be unprovable truths. You can never know it all. [35:14]
  Evolution has created various forms of virtual reality [39:40]
  Donald describes the process by which you “see” an apple [42:05]
  Evolution tells us that the language of space and time does not describe reality [47:53]
  Donald proposes that reality is a vast social network of conscious agents [49:39]
  A conscious agent creates their interpretation from their experiences [53:32]
  What is consciousness? [57:12]
  What does a conscious agent need to do? [1:00:49]
  Donald and Tom discuss fascinating cases of split-brain patients [1:08:13]
  If your visualization tool is very good, it can focus on finer and finer detail [1:11:36]
  If space-time is doomed then is causality doomed as well? [1:22:17]
  Tom and Donald discuss the nature of cause and effect [1:24:35]
  Donald discusses free will and its relationship to cause and effect [1:28:01]
  The self is a construction just like space and time [1:30:27]
  You can never experience yourself choosing [1:39:15]
  Donald describes the experience of realizing that he is just inside a VR headset [1:40:01]
  What created math? [1:44:53]
  What’s the difference between math all the way down and turtles all the way down? [1:50:25]
  Tom and Donald discuss the double-slit experiment in physics [1:56:18]
  Donald talks about his wife and his marriage [2:01:49]
  Donald and Tom discuss the possibility of taking off the headset [2:03:10]
  Donald and Tom discuss why they haven’t used psychedelics [2:07:10]
  Since space-time is doomed, what’s next? [2:13:27]

What is your take on the above points?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:32 am What is your take on the above points?

Most of us believe that we see reality as it is. But we don’t.
I don't know that most of us believe that, maybe that's true. We don't, though, yes I agree.

Seeing the truth and seeing what you need to survive are very different things [13:51]
Evolution gave us the equivalent of a desktop interface, not the truth
Yes, I agree with this.

Evolution tells us that the language of space and time does not describe reality
...no. That seems like an extremely silly idea. How does evolution tell us that? Did evolution write a book about space time?

The self is a construction just like space and time
Loosely, yes-ish.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:32 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:03 am So you agree that "I believe in realism" and "I don't believe in souls" are not contradictory beliefs to hold simultaneously. Fantastic.

Again I am not too sure of your point.

I feel like I made it clear, but I'll try to make it clearer:

When you remove the silly word games, you fully see and understand that someone can be a realist and not believe in souls.

Why are you crying?

I feel sad, really, really, sad (sob, sob, whimper, whimper).

Why?!

Dunno! (sob, whimper)

Let's go for a drive.

Where are you taking me?

Where do you suppose I'd take a crying girl?

Oh! Take me! Take me!

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:32 am What is your take on the above points?

Evolution tells us that the language of space and time does not describe reality
...no. That seems like an extremely silly idea. How does evolution tell us that? Did evolution write a book about space time?

Actually it is silly to take the above that literally.
To get the idea, you'll need to read Hoffman's book.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:00 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:32 am What is your take on the above points?

Evolution tells us that the language of space and time does not describe reality
...no. That seems like an extremely silly idea. How does evolution tell us that? Did evolution write a book about space time?

Actually it is silly to take the above that literally.
To get the idea, you'll need to read Hoffman's book.

Ah so Hoffman tells us that the language of space and time does not describe reality. That's not what you said. That's of course much clearer than saying evolution tells us that.

Well, I'll take your word for it, if you say Hofmann tells us that then I guess he does.

Hoffman seems like a philosophical realist to me. A lot of his words imply there's a such thing as objective reality, real truth. If he thinks we live in a vr headset of sorts, then his Philosophical Realism may be of the "brain in a vat" variety, but as we've established, that IS philosophical realism.

Donald proposes that reality is a vast social network of conscious agents [49:39]

This is the bit that I guess sounds the most like your presented anti realist stance. So perhaps he's not a philosophical realist, OR perhaps that's another flavour of philosophical realism - why couldn't it be REAL that reality is this social network? Presumably that social network is the REAL TRUTH even if we don't know about it. Presumably it's always been the case even when no human knew it. Right? The truthfulness of that world view doesn't rely on us knowing it, or looking at it. If it's true, it IS the deep down truth of reality. I kinda feel like that's just another example of the philosophical realism you've been arguing against

And, importantly, before he presents this idea he says "I'm probably wrong". I agree. I think he's probably wrong.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:23 am Hoffman seems like a philosophical realist to me. A lot of his words imply there's a such thing as objective reality, real truth. If he thinks we live in a vr headset of sorts, then his Philosophical Realism may be of the "brain in a vat" variety, but as we've established, that IS philosophical realism.

He calls himself a conscious realist.

Here's a very interesting discussion of his ideas...
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy200 ... %E2%80%9D.

And interestingly enough, I see hints here of where I think the issues with VA's position is that it goes too far, but actually doesn't go far enough.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:44 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:23 am Hoffman seems like a philosophical realist to me. A lot of his words imply there's a such thing as objective reality, real truth. If he thinks we live in a vr headset of sorts, then his Philosophical Realism may be of the "brain in a vat" variety, but as we've established, that IS philosophical realism.

He calls himself a conscious realist.

Here's a very interesting discussion of his ideas...
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy200 ... %E2%80%9D.

That is indeed very interesting. Thanks for that.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:51 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:44 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:23 am Hoffman seems like a philosophical realist to me. A lot of his words imply there's a such thing as objective reality, real truth. If he thinks we live in a vr headset of sorts, then his Philosophical Realism may be of the "brain in a vat" variety, but as we've established, that IS philosophical realism.

He calls himself a conscious realist.

Here's a very interesting discussion of his ideas...
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy200 ... %E2%80%9D.

That is indeed very interesting. Thanks for that.

One thing I like about the articles is it complexifies the issue. Like it's not a simple realism vs antirealism. All sorts of other positio and nuances come into play.

As an aside, I think there is a very strong human tendency to push everyone to choose one of two teams and to view everything as adhering to one team and denying the other. I think that's a damaging model politically but also philosophically. I don't think, for example, that either VA or PH do this in some pure form, but I think it underlies a lot of...............reactions.

Other things don't get to breathe.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:42 am

Donald proposes that reality is a vast social network of conscious agents [49:39]

This is the bit that I guess sounds the most like your presented anti realist stance. So perhaps he's not a philosophical realist, OR perhaps that's another flavour of philosophical realism - why couldn't it be REAL that reality is this social network? Presumably that social network is the REAL TRUTH even if we don't know about it. Presumably it's always been the case even when no human knew it. Right? The truthfulness of that world view doesn't rely on us knowing it, or looking at it. If it's true, it IS the deep down truth of reality. I kinda feel like that's just another example of the philosophical realism you've been arguing against

And, importantly, before he presents this idea he says "I'm probably wrong". I agree. I think he's probably wrong.

1. In one sense, Hoffman is an anti-philosophical realist as far as he assert that reality is a human construct via evolution. I agree with him on this.

2. However, in the ultimate sense, Hoffman is a philosophical realist, in the sense that he relies on the BOTTOM-UP approach, that there is an underlying reality out there beyond point 1 above. In the ultimate sense, it is chasing an illusion.

3. In a TOP-DOWN approach [mine], an anti-philosophical realist just accept whatever as far [deep] as the human-based evidence and reasoning can support. There is no need to speculate further there could be a reality out there which supposedly is independent from humans collectively.

4. As I had stated, philosophical realism [mind-independence] is an evolutionary default that humans [evolved from LUCA and prior organic entities] been habitualized since 4 billion years ago.

5. Clinging to philosophical realism all the way is a psychological issue [cognitive dissonance] that philosophical realists cannot let go of this habituation that there must be a reality out there. Note Einstein's clinging to realism, same for Hoffman here, and many others.
As Kant had alluded to this strong habituation;

• Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

6. In terms of utility to humanity, other than the psychological utilities, what significant and critical contribution does philosophical realism [BOTTOM-UP] makes to humanity versus the TOP-DOWN anti-philosophical-realism approach [say Kantian Transcendental Idealism]??
(note, the article above re Hoffman misrepresented what is Kantian Transcendental Idealism - which is TOP-DOWN Kant's Copernican Revolution].