Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Atla]

Maybe I misunderstood, then. I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me. Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.

@VA, If I'm misunderstanding your position, then I apologize.

No, that's roughly my position and what VA is 'arguing' against.

Interesting. Is that true, VA? What do you disagree with in my summary above?

_____

You might be surprised to learn that your sins are heavy. You are blinded by illusion. You are a mere child, never an adult. Crippled by existential terror, overwhelmed by fear, you live in denial. Psychologically you're a wreck. You are unsophisticated, have low intelligence and are more likely to murder people.

(According to VA.)

You might be wondering what your sin even was. You said the forbidden words: 'what is out there exists'

[Gary Childress]

No, that's roughly my position and what VA is 'arguing' against.

Interesting. Is that true, VA? What do you disagree with in my summary above?

_____

You might be surprised to learn that your sins are heavy. You are blinded by illusion. You are a mere child, never an adult. Crippled by existential terror, overwhelmed by fear, you live in denial. Psychologically you're a wreck. You are unsophisticated, have low intelligence and are more likely to murder people.

(According to VA.)

You might be wondering what your sin even was. You said the forbidden words: 'what is out there exists'

It sounds like VA is some manner of idealist. Are you sure that's his position? I didn't think there were many of those these days.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All that seems to make sense to me.

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Maybe I misunderstood, then. I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me. Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.

@VA, If I'm misunderstanding your position, then I apologize.

There are two phases to the above.

With reference to the image below, we can agree on your:

"I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me."



Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.
I would agree there is something out there emerging from that soup of particle contingent upon the human conditions but I would not accept that on an absolute & ideological basis but merely on a relative basis.

The philosophical realists [Atla, PH and others] insists the green apple tree and even the soup of particles exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
As an antirealist [Kantian] I claim the green apple tree exists independently 'out there' but it is only a relative basis, i.e. contingent upon the human conditions.

The difference is absolute for the indirect and philosophical realist and relative for the antirealist [Kantian].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Interesting. Is that true, VA? What do you disagree with in my summary above?

You might be surprised to learn that your sins are heavy. You are blinded by illusion. You are a mere child, never an adult. Crippled by existential terror, overwhelmed by fear, you live in denial. Psychologically you're a wreck. You are unsophisticated, have low intelligence and are more likely to murder people.

(According to VA.)

You might be wondering what your sin even was. You said the forbidden words: 'what is out there exists'

It sounds like VA is some manner of idealist. Are you sure that's his position? I didn't think there were many of those these days.

Idealism is a very loose word which can go either way.

My belief is that of empirical realism, i.e. what is critical is empirical evidences but contingent upon the human conditions.
In this sense, empirical realism is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism.

On the other hand, Atla, PH and others are onto philosophical realism which is transcendental realism and also Empirical Idealism.
So the pseudo-realists like Atla, PH and others are Idealists in this context.
They believe reality transcend and is beyond the empirical which land itself into mysticism and la la land.
Philosophical realists insist they are realistic but at the finest level of philosophical reflection, they are not realistic. [OP]

[Gary Childress]

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Maybe I misunderstood, then. I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me. Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.

@VA, If I'm misunderstanding your position, then I apologize.

There are two phases to the above.

With reference to the image below, we can agree on your:

"I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me."



Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.
I would agree there is something out there emerging from that soup of particle contingent upon the human conditions but I would not accept that on an absolute & ideological basis but merely on a relative basis.

The philosophical realists [Atla, PH and others] insists the green apple tree and even the soup of particles exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
As an antirealist [Kantian] I claim the green apple tree exists independently 'out there' but it is only a relative basis, i.e. contingent upon the human conditions.

The difference is absolute for the indirect and philosophical realist and relative for the antirealist [Kantian].

Hmm. It seems to me that there are very real things out there that take the form of apple trees and predators and all that stuff that my sense organs present to me. It seems to me that the world is "real" in the sense that if we don't heed our senses there could be dire consequences in some cases. If I don't know the difference between an apple tree and a tree containing atoms arranged in the form of something that will destroy my atoms via poisonous fruit or something, then it seems to me that I won't have children or live very long. In effect, I will be excluded from life itself if I don't follow my senses to whatever degree. Granted, the senses aren't perfect, they can give me erroneous information, however, they can also give correct information at times.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by being "out there" on a "relative basis". It seems to me that arrangements of atoms are, in fact, out there that can be either beneficial or detrimental to my arrangement of atoms. Are you suggesting that apple trees aren't also "real" to me? And what is meant by "real"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hmm. It seems to me that there are very real things out there that take the form of apple trees and predators and all that stuff that my sense organs present to me. It seems to me that the world is "real" in the sense that if we don't heed our senses there could be dire consequences in some cases. If I don't know the difference between an apple tree and a tree containing atoms arranged in the form of something that will destroy my atoms via poisonous fruit or something, then it seems to me that I won't have children or live very long. In effect, I will be excluded from life itself if I don't follow my senses to whatever degree. Granted, the senses aren't perfect, they can give me erroneous information, however, they can also give correct information at times.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by being "out there" on a "relative basis". It seems to me that arrangements of atoms are, in fact, out there that can be either beneficial or detrimental to my arrangement of atoms. Are you suggesting that apple trees aren't also "real" to me? And what is meant by "real"?

There is no such thing as supposedly & absolutely real atoms which are made of particles & quarks.

Particles do not exists as absolutely real.
Particles can either be a wave or physical-thing depending on the human being interaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Relative means we accept whatever is the truth of independent existence based on empirical evidences but cannot be absolutely certain that is the case.
Theoretically it is only an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God can claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Being fallible human beings we cannot make claims of absoluteness for any thing.

[Atla]

On the other hand, Atla, PH and others are onto philosophical realism which is transcendental realism

Let's not forget that VA is blatantly lying here, philosophical realism and transcendental realism aren't synonymous at all. Indirect realism for example - what the topic is about - falls under philosophical realism but not under transcendental realism.

[Atla]

There is no such thing as supposedly & absolutely real atoms which are made of particles & quarks.

Particles do not exists as absolutely real.
Particles can either be a wave or physical-thing depending on the human being interaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Also, note that VA is the first person in history to have without doubt found the correct interpretation of QM, which is impressive. He beat a long list of Nobel laureate physicists to it who couldn't do it for a century.

[Gary Childress]

Hmm. It seems to me that there are very real things out there that take the form of apple trees and predators and all that stuff that my sense organs present to me. It seems to me that the world is "real" in the sense that if we don't heed our senses there could be dire consequences in some cases. If I don't know the difference between an apple tree and a tree containing atoms arranged in the form of something that will destroy my atoms via poisonous fruit or something, then it seems to me that I won't have children or live very long. In effect, I will be excluded from life itself if I don't follow my senses to whatever degree. Granted, the senses aren't perfect, they can give me erroneous information, however, they can also give correct information at times.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by being "out there" on a "relative basis". It seems to me that arrangements of atoms are, in fact, out there that can be either beneficial or detrimental to my arrangement of atoms. Are you suggesting that apple trees aren't also "real" to me? And what is meant by "real"?

There is no such thing as supposedly & absolutely real atoms which are made of particles & quarks.

Particles do not exists as absolutely real.
Particles can either be a wave or physical-thing depending on the human being interaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Relative means we accept whatever is the truth of independent existence based on empirical evidences but cannot be absolutely certain that is the case.
Theoretically it is only an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God can claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Being fallible human beings we cannot make claims of absoluteness for any thing.

What do you mean by the word "real" when you say there is no such thing as atoms? When I think of the word "real" one way I think of it is in terms of "real" versus "imaginary" or "illusory". Is that what you mean by the word "real"? For example, my experience of the apple tree may indeed, strictly speaking, be illusory in the sense that what I experience (color, sound, taste) may be part of my experience of the apple tree but possibly not part of the apple tree independently of my experience.

Do you believe that something exists independently of my perception? For example, are there things in this world to satiate what I experience as hunger or need to avoid at cost of harm to me and things like that? Or is the notion that I could die of hunger if I don't find apples or something to eat all illusory?

Are you perhaps thinking that we live in a virtual reality, maybe as brains in vats in some artificial "reality"?

[Gary Childress]

You might be surprised to learn that your sins are heavy. You are blinded by illusion. You are a mere child, never an adult. Crippled by existential terror, overwhelmed by fear, you live in denial. Psychologically you're a wreck. You are unsophisticated, have low intelligence and are more likely to murder people.

(According to VA.)

You might be wondering what your sin even was. You said the forbidden words: 'what is out there exists'

It sounds like VA is some manner of idealist. Are you sure that's his position? I didn't think there were many of those these days.

Idealism is a very loose word which can go either way.

I can agree that "idealism" is a "loose word". Is "realism" not a "loose word" also?

I looked up "Moral Anti-Realism" in the Stanford Encyclopedia website and it seems that the debate concerning "Moral Anti-Realism" is a very nuanced and complex one (according to the entry).

I guess my starting point is that I have assumptions about the world and some of those assumptions are probably reasonably good ones to have in terms of keeping me alive and well. I mean, I assume that the possibility is out there that I could die and no longer exist in the world at all (a.k.a. not have any more thoughts or experiences ever again/cease to be--or otherwise go to heaven or hell, if that is the case). And dying is something that I have whatever inclination (natural or otherwise) to avoid.

Am I wrong to think that way? I don't know if that makes me a "realist" or "anti-realist" but those are the assumptions I more or less conduct my existence under. I realize it is possible that those are assumptions that might not be true, but I find myself inhibited from putting them to a test to find out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hmm. It seems to me that there are very real things out there that take the form of apple trees and predators and all that stuff that my sense organs present to me. It seems to me that the world is "real" in the sense that if we don't heed our senses there could be dire consequences in some cases. If I don't know the difference between an apple tree and a tree containing atoms arranged in the form of something that will destroy my atoms via poisonous fruit or something, then it seems to me that I won't have children or live very long. In effect, I will be excluded from life itself if I don't follow my senses to whatever degree. Granted, the senses aren't perfect, they can give me erroneous information, however, they can also give correct information at times.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by being "out there" on a "relative basis". It seems to me that arrangements of atoms are, in fact, out there that can be either beneficial or detrimental to my arrangement of atoms. Are you suggesting that apple trees aren't also "real" to me? And what is meant by "real"?

There is no such thing as supposedly & absolutely real atoms which are made of particles & quarks.

Particles do not exists as absolutely real.
Particles can either be a wave or physical-thing depending on the human being interaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Relative means we accept whatever is the truth of independent existence based on empirical evidences but cannot be absolutely certain that is the case.
Theoretically it is only an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God can claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Being fallible human beings we cannot make claims of absoluteness for any thing.

What do you mean by the word "real" when you say there is no such thing as atoms? When I think of the word "real" one way I think of it is in terms of "real" versus "imaginary" or "illusory". Is that what you mean by the word "real"? For example, my experience of the apple tree may indeed, strictly speaking, be illusory in the sense that what I experience (color, sound, taste) may be part of my experience of the apple tree but possibly not part of the apple tree independently of my experience.

Do you believe that something exists independently of my perception? For example, are there things in this world to satiate what I experience as hunger or need to avoid at cost of harm to me and things like that? Or is the notion that I could die of hunger if I don't find apples or something to eat all illusory?

Are you perhaps thinking that we live in a virtual reality, maybe as brains in vats in some artificial "reality"?

The term 'real' is also a loose term.
Normally when we say a thing is real and independent from humans, it is implied with reference to common sense.
So within common sense, I do believe there things out there which I can eat to satiate hunger or as a threat to be avoided.
Common sense works to a degree, but it is very unreliable.

When we say something is real, it cannot stand 'naked'. What is real cannot be in an absolute sense.

Philosophically there is need to be rigorous, i.e. 'what is real' must be qualified to a specific human-based* sense or framework & system [FS]. * conditioned to a collective of human-subjects.
As such, there is no such thing as 'atoms exists as real absolutely' without qualifying it to a human-based FS.

Thus realistically, 'atoms exists as real' must be qualified to the science-chemistry FS.
So, "atoms exists as real' only because the science-chemistry FS said so.

The problem with Indirect Realists is when they claim there is a real tree out there existing absolutely independent of humans, they simply claim it is so - most likely based on common sense.
When indirect realists claimed 'the apple exists out there as real' in as absolutely independent of humans and without qualification to a FS, then such a supposed real apple is an illusion.
In the extreme indirect realists will claim God exists as real absolutely independent of humans without qualifications except to say, the Book said so.

When pressed, the secular indirect realists claim science can confirm the existence of the tree that is independent of humans.
But science does not exist without being conditioned to a collective-of-human-subjects.
As such, science cannot confirm anything a real absolutely independent of humans.
Therefore, the indirect realist is not realistic [as defined above].

The point is when one claim 'X exists as real', in a philosophical discussion, such a claim must be qualified to the specific framework and system the claim is grounded on.

Therefore, when you claim [philosophically], the tree outside your window exists as real, you must be aware and qualify what is the framework and system you are grounding it upon.
One cannot just claim, I said so [based on what is experienced], because one could be hallucinating or a brain-in-a-vat.

Now, when you make such a claim as 'the tree outside your window exists as real' what are your justifications? [think of all the relevant nuances in your answer].

[Veritas Aequitas]

It sounds like VA is some manner of idealist. Are you sure that's his position? I didn't think there were many of those these days.

Idealism is a very loose word which can go either way.

I can agree that "idealism" is a "loose word". Is "realism" not a "loose word" also?

I looked up "Moral Anti-Realism" in the Stanford Encyclopedia website and it seems that the debate concerning "Moral Anti-Realism" is a very nuanced and complex one (according to the entry).

I guess my starting point is that I have assumptions about the world and some of those assumptions are probably reasonably good ones to have in terms of keeping me alive and well. I mean, I assume that the possibility is out there that I could die and no longer exist in the world at all (a.k.a. not have any more thoughts or experiences ever again/cease to be--or otherwise go to heaven or hell, if that is the case). And dying is something that I have whatever inclination (natural or otherwise) to avoid.

Am I wrong to think that way? I don't know if that makes me a "realist" or "anti-realist" but those are the assumptions I more or less conduct my existence under. I realize it is possible that those are assumptions that might not be true, but I find myself inhibited from putting them to a test to find out.

That is the point, i.e. you have to make the necessary assumptions.
Therefore you cannot be absolutely sure your claims are independent of your assumptions.
The fact is all humans make shared and specific assumptions.

The typical scenario is there is an emergence of say a real table in front of you, this emergence is realized as real, thereupon perceived, known and described. This emerged real table is then perceived and known as being external to yourself.
But because there are implied assumptions made by you or any human being in realizing that real table, you cannot claim its existence is totally unconditional. As such, this real table is relative to the human conditions [at least to the necessary assumptions].

However a philosophical realist or indirect realists do not acknowledge the relativeness but rather claim whatever exists is real is absolutely independent of the human conditions and assumptions.
As explain above such a claim of absoluteness is contradictory.
So the philosophical realist or indirect realists' claim of an absolutely independent reality is not tenable, i.e. they are chasing an illusion just like those who hallucinate claim what they hallucinated are really real.

Thus whatever is declared as real by humans and humanity cannot be independent of those incorporated assumptions done within a specific human-based framework and system.
So when humans claim there are facts, these facts cannot be absolutely independent of the implied assumptions within those claims of facts.

The problem is indirect realists as philosophical realists are ignorant they are making those assumptions and insist there is a reality out there existing absolutely independent of any assumptions.
See the contradiction? philosophical realists and indirect realists while making assumptions [ignorant they are doing it] while at the same time denying they are making assumptions.

So, when PH [a philosophical realists] claims there are fact, he is claiming his fact is absolutely independent of any assumptions made by him and all humans in claiming what is a fact. Such a claim by PH is illusory because he is denying or ignorant of the subliminal assumptions he has to make in arriving at his conclusion.

On the other hand, I as an antirealist [Kant] do not agree with what the realists claimed as fact [absolutely independent of any assumptions and the human conditions].
I claim whatever is fact or real is always conditioned upon the human conditions including the subliminal or explicit assumptions I must made to enable an emergence of a real world.

[Atla]

There is no such thing as supposedly & absolutely real atoms which are made of particles & quarks.

Particles do not exists as absolutely real.
Particles can either be a wave or physical-thing depending on the human being interaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Relative means we accept whatever is the truth of independent existence based on empirical evidences but cannot be absolutely certain that is the case.
Theoretically it is only an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God can claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Being fallible human beings we cannot make claims of absoluteness for any thing.

What do you mean by the word "real" when you say there is no such thing as atoms? When I think of the word "real" one way I think of it is in terms of "real" versus "imaginary" or "illusory". Is that what you mean by the word "real"? For example, my experience of the apple tree may indeed, strictly speaking, be illusory in the sense that what I experience (color, sound, taste) may be part of my experience of the apple tree but possibly not part of the apple tree independently of my experience.

Do you believe that something exists independently of my perception? For example, are there things in this world to satiate what I experience as hunger or need to avoid at cost of harm to me and things like that? Or is the notion that I could die of hunger if I don't find apples or something to eat all illusory?

Are you perhaps thinking that we live in a virtual reality, maybe as brains in vats in some artificial "reality"?

The term 'real' is also a loose term.
Normally when we say a thing is real and independent from humans, it is implied with reference to common sense.
So within common sense, I do believe there things out there which I can eat to satiate hunger or as a threat to be avoided.
Common sense works to a degree, but it is very unreliable.

When we say something is real, it cannot stand 'naked'. What is real cannot be in an absolute sense.

Philosophically there is need to be rigorous, i.e. 'what is real' must be qualified to a specific human-based* sense or framework & system [FS]. * conditioned to a collective of human-subjects.
As such, there is no such thing as 'atoms exists as real absolutely' without qualifying it to a human-based FS.

Thus realistically, 'atoms exists as real' must be qualified to the science-chemistry FS.
So, "atoms exists as real' only because the science-chemistry FS said so.

The problem with Indirect Realists is when they claim there is a real tree out there existing absolutely independent of humans, they simply claim it is so - most likely based on common sense.
When indirect realists claimed 'the apple exists out there as real' in as absolutely independent of humans and without qualification to a FS, then such a supposed real apple is an illusion.
In the extreme indirect realists will claim God exists as real absolutely independent of humans without qualifications except to say, the Book said so.

When pressed, the secular indirect realists claim science can confirm the existence of the tree that is independent of humans.
But science does not exist without being conditioned to a collective-of-human-subjects.
As such, science cannot confirm anything a real absolutely independent of humans.
Therefore, the indirect realist is not realistic [as defined above].

The point is when one claim 'X exists as real', in a philosophical discussion, such a claim must be qualified to the specific framework and system the claim is grounded on.

Therefore, when you claim [philosophically], the tree outside your window exists as real, you must be aware and qualify what is the framework and system you are grounding it upon.
One cannot just claim, I said so [based on what is experienced], because one could be hallucinating or a brain-in-a-vat.

Now, when you make such a claim as 'the tree outside your window exists as real' what are your justifications? [think of all the relevant nuances in your answer].

The philosophy that everything has to be qualified to an FS, can't be taken seriously from the indirect realist perspective. Yes we think there is probably a world outside the mind.

A self-important German autist came up with the idea who was more concerned with promoting himself than with coming up with a sensible unified philosophy (unifying 18th century rationalism and empiricism).

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______

[seeds]

_______

Notes:


_______