Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:24 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm
Consider the following claims.
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception
creates the perceived.
2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description
creates the described.
I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Strawmaning yet again with very shallow views!
PH:
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.
I agree as with conventional Science [QM the exception] that the perceived [reality] do exists outside a perception.
When we see an apple on a tree in the orchard from our window, it is undeniable from
that perspective, that the perceived apple exists outside our perception of the apple.
So a perception does not create the perceived in this
perspective.
The problem starts with the ideology of
Philosophical Realism,
- Philosophical realism .. about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views..
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..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical Realism claim the perceived [reality] is absolutely independent of the human self, mind-independent existence, i.e. exists as a thing-in-itself unconditionally.
Now while I agree the perceived [reality] exists outside of perception, it is not absolutely independent from the human self. This is the conventional, scientific or empirical perspective.
From a more refined perspective, the perceived [reality], cannot be absolutely independent from the human self which is intricately part and parcel of reality.
Note the equivalent progress of cognition of reality in Physics;
1. Classical Newtonian physics adopt the Philosophical Realists' perspective which include the God's Eye View of reality where every thing perceived exist
absolutely outside perception. While such a perspective has its utility, it has its limitation to what is reality.
2. Then we have Einstein's Relativity & the Observers' Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
- Einstein's revelation was that observers in relative motion experience time differently: it's perfectly possible for two events to happen simultaneously from the perspective of one observer, yet happen at different times from the perspective of the other. And both observers would be right.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ing-genius#:
In this case, while observed reality may be relative to the observer, Einstein still maintain there is still a thing-in-itself which is not effected by the observer.
This is why Einstein insisted the moon is still there when no one is observing it.
3. At present we have Quantum Mechanics, starting with the
Wave Collapse Function to where the latest view acceptable to most quantum physicists is, there is no absolute reality out there.
What is reality is
conditioned and
entangled with the human self.
In fact the last Nobel Prize of Physics on non-locality is based on this theory.
The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/
Note
Model Dependent Realism;
It claims that
it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:~
It is not the case that perception [crude] that create 'the perceived' but rather there is a complex process that enable the emergence of a thing or object where common sense necessarily objectify it as outside the self as a convenience.
You ignorantly and dogmatically insist this common sense reality is the sole reality and nothing else matters.
Many Quantum Physicists will agree with [against their intuition], if no subjects are cognizing the moon, there is no moon.
Such a view had been proposed by Eastern Philosophers >2000 years ago or even the Greeks, i.e. Protagoras' "Man is the Measure of All Things'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
PH: 2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
This is a strawman based on stupidity and desperation.
Despite the changing cognition of reality to a more realistic perspective, you are so pathetically stuck with your dogmatic ideology of Philosophical Realism which is mainly a reliance of words and their meanings, not on reality per se.
I claimed this dogmatism of yours and the likes is driven a desperate existential angst which is a psychological defense mechanism to secure the status quo of yours.
My perspective of objective moral facts hinge on the latest scientific facts of human nature.