Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 5:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 2:42 am ..

Come on VA, clear up the big mystery for us gnat-folk:

In this sense, Kant did not claim external reality is DEPENDENT of humans but rather he claim humans are SOMEHOW contributing to "what is reality" relatively, i.e. external reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If external reality is shaped by the human conditions, then HOW is it not dependent on humans? The human conditions are part of humans..

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:00 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 5:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 2:42 am ..

Come on VA, clear up the big mystery for us gnat-folk:

In this sense, Kant did not claim external reality is DEPENDENT of humans but rather he claim humans are SOMEHOW contributing to "what is reality" relatively, i.e. external reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If external reality is shaped by the human conditions, then HOW is it not dependent on humans? The human conditions are part of humans..

There are nuances to the meaning of dependent.

e.g.
-absolute dependent as in a fetus is absolute dependent on the mother
-interdependent, (of two or more people or things) dependent on each other, as in symbiosis.
-complementarity
-relational dependence
- etc.

To be more precise,
Kant did not claim external reality is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT of humans but rather he claimed humans are SOMEHOW contributing [as an intricate part] to "what is reality" relatively, i.e. external reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

The point is,
whatever is claimed as 'reality' it cannot be without or is absolute independent of the human conditions; the human conditions must somehow [imperatively] be part of reality.

The stance is to oppose the philosophical realists claim that whatever is reality or things are absolutely human/mind independent, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are humans or not in the absolute sense.
This dogmatic ideology is not tenable and has never been proven to be true; rather it is merely based on a speculation or assumption.
Philosophical realists insist is it really real [when it is only an assumption or speculation] because of an evolutionary default driven an existential crisis.
Besides this ideology has contributed to loads of evil throughout human history and cannot provide grounds for the progress of humanity. [especially morality]

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:00 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 5:33 am
Come on VA, clear up the big mystery for us gnat-folk:



If external reality is shaped by the human conditions, then HOW is it not dependent on humans? The human conditions are part of humans..

There are nuances to the meaning of dependent.

e.g.
-absolute dependent as in a fetus is absolute dependent on the mother
-interdependent, (of two or more people or things) dependent on each other, as in symbiosis.
-complementarity
-relational dependence
- etc.

To be more precise,
Kant did not claim external reality is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT of humans but rather he claimed humans are SOMEHOW contributing [as an intricate part] to "what is reality" relatively, i.e. external reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

The point is,
whatever is claimed as 'reality' it cannot be without or is absolute independent of the human conditions; the human conditions must somehow [imperatively] be part of reality.

The stance is to oppose the philosophical realists claim that whatever is reality or things are absolutely human/mind independent, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are humans or not in the absolute sense.
This dogmatic ideology is not tenable and has never been proven to be true; rather it is merely based on a speculation or assumption.
Philosophical realists insist is it really real [when it is only an assumption or speculation] because of an evolutionary default driven an existential crisis.
Besides this ideology has contributed to loads of evil throughout human history and cannot provide grounds for the progress of humanity. [especially morality]

Again you didn't explain the crucial part. How can an intricate PART of reality shape ALL of external reality?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:41 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:00 am
There are nuances to the meaning of dependent.

e.g.
-absolute dependent as in a fetus is absolute dependent on the mother
-interdependent, (of two or more people or things) dependent on each other, as in symbiosis.
-complementarity
-relational dependence
- etc.

To be more precise,
Kant did not claim external reality is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT of humans but rather he claimed humans are SOMEHOW contributing [as an intricate part] to "what is reality" relatively, i.e. external reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

The point is,
whatever is claimed as 'reality' it cannot be without or is absolute independent of the human conditions; the human conditions must somehow [imperatively] be part of reality.

The stance is to oppose the philosophical realists claim that whatever is reality or things are absolutely human/mind independent, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are humans or not in the absolute sense.
This dogmatic ideology is not tenable and has never been proven to be true; rather it is merely based on a speculation or assumption.
Philosophical realists insist is it really real [when it is only an assumption or speculation] because of an evolutionary default driven an existential crisis.
Besides this ideology has contributed to loads of evil throughout human history and cannot provide grounds for the progress of humanity. [especially morality]

Again you didn't explain the crucial part. How can an intricate PART of reality shape ALL of external reality?

The main point is to oppose and stop the philosophical realists from claiming that reality and things are ABSOLUTELY human/mind independent, i.e. reality/things exist regardless of there are humans or not.

First where is the proof from the philosophical realist to make the above claim an an absolutely mind-independent reality.
There are loads of objections to the philosophical realists claims from various philosophical antirealists [various idealism, etc.].
There are the problems of Descartes and Hume skepticism.
There is radical skepticism and general skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Then there is Kant hammering a death blow to the absolute claims of philosophical realism, indirect and direct realism.

Obviously being a philosophical realists [indirect realism] you will want to cling to your beliefs [ideology] like there is tomorrow.
But given the above loads of counters, you have the onus to acknowledge ] the counters till the point of full understanding them [not necessary agree with].
So far, you have not make any attempt to understand fully [not necessary agree with] the counters against indirect realism.

You are merely clinging on to speculations based on common sense which is very crude and fallible.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:41 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:06 am
Again you didn't explain the crucial part. How can an intricate PART of reality shape ALL of external reality?

The main point is to oppose and stop the philosophical realists from claiming that reality and things are ABSOLUTELY human/mind independent, i.e. reality/things exist regardless of there are humans or not.

First where is the proof from the philosophical realist to make the above claim an an absolutely mind-independent reality.
There are loads of objections to the philosophical realists claims from various philosophical antirealists [various idealism, etc.].
There are the problems of Descartes and Hume skepticism.
There is radical skepticism and general skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Then there is Kant hammering a death blow to the absolute claims of philosophical realism, indirect and direct realism.

Obviously being a philosophical realists [indirect realism] you will want to cling to your beliefs [ideology] like there is tomorrow.
But given the above loads of counters, you have the onus to acknowledge ] the counters till the point of full understanding them [not necessary agree with].
So far, you have not make any attempt to understand fully [not necessary agree with] the counters against indirect realism.

You are merely clinging on to speculations based on common sense which is very crude and fallible.

Again you didn't explain the crucial part. How can an intricate PART of reality shape ALL of external reality?

How??
You can't convince p-realists if your alternative is just incoherent. It just doesn't make sense.

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

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:58 pm Sack the fiction of the mind, and the silly question of reality's dependence on or independence from the mind evaporates, as does Kant's silly fake answer, along with the silly argument against philosophical realism. Simples.

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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:38 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:41 am
The main point is to oppose and stop the philosophical realists from claiming that reality and things are ABSOLUTELY human/mind independent, i.e. reality/things exist regardless of there are humans or not.

First where is the proof from the philosophical realist to make the above claim an an absolutely mind-independent reality.
There are loads of objections to the philosophical realists claims from various philosophical antirealists [various idealism, etc.].
There are the problems of Descartes and Hume skepticism.
There is radical skepticism and general skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Then there is Kant hammering a death blow to the absolute claims of philosophical realism, indirect and direct realism.

Obviously being a philosophical realists [indirect realism] you will want to cling to your beliefs [ideology] like there is tomorrow.
But given the above loads of counters, you have the onus to acknowledge ] the counters till the point of full understanding them [not necessary agree with].
So far, you have not make any attempt to understand fully [not necessary agree with] the counters against indirect realism.

You are merely clinging on to speculations based on common sense which is very crude and fallible.

Again you didn't explain the crucial part. How can an intricate PART of reality shape ALL of external reality?

How??
You can't convince p-realists if your alternative is just incoherent. It just doesn't make sense.

That is a strawman [misinterpretation].

I did not assert an intricate PART of reality shapes ALL of external reality.
No person with basic intelligence will make such a contradictory claim.
A part is a part and it cannot be the Whole.

What I claim is,
humans and humanity are an intricate part of reality i.e. all there is, thus interrelated somehow to the whole of reality and all the things therein.

As such, the philosophical realist's [indirect realist] claim* reality and things are ABSOLUTELY interdependent of humans or human-mind, is false.

* Philosophical realism is:

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

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:58 pm Sack the fiction of the mind, and the silly question of reality's dependence on or independence from the mind evaporates, as does Kant's silly fake answer, along with the silly argument against philosophical realism. Simples.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:38 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:44 am
Again you didn't explain the crucial part. How can an intricate PART of reality shape ALL of external reality?

How??
You can't convince p-realists if your alternative is just incoherent. It just doesn't make sense.

That is a strawman [misinterpretation].

I did not assert an intricate PART of reality shapes ALL of external reality.
No person with basic intelligence will make such a contradictory claim.
A part is a part and it cannot be the Whole.

What I claim is,
humans and humanity are an intricate part of reality i.e. all there is, thus interrelated somehow to the whole of reality and all the things therein.

As such, the philosophical realist's [indirect realist] claim* reality and things are ABSOLUTELY interdependent of humans or human-mind, is false.

* Philosophical realism is:

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

No it's not a strawman. You can't be genuinely this stupid, it's just not possible.

Reality only exists if a mind is perceiving it = reality is mind-dependent.
Mere appearance in the eye of the beholder = reality is mind-dependent.
You say reality is mind-dependent, so reality is dependent on the mind. And you also say that reality is not mind-dependent, the mind is a part and parcel of the whole.

Again Kant's philosophy is refuted, if this is what he meant. A philosophy has to have internal consistency, has to make sense. Yours never once made sense.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:56 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:58 pm Sack the fiction of the mind, and the silly question of reality's dependence on or independence from the mind evaporates, as does Kant's silly fake answer, along with the silly argument against philosophical realism. Simples.

Says the weird death-cultist. Don't tell others to try to commit mental suicide just because you did that. (And ultimately failed of course.) You can be very proud of yourself.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:38 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:56 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:58 pm Sack the fiction of the mind, and the silly question of reality's dependence on or independence from the mind evaporates, as does Kant's silly fake answer, along with the silly argument against philosophical realism. Simples.

Says the weird death-cultist. Don't tell others to try to commit mental suicide just because you did that. (And ultimately failed of course.) You can be very proud of yourself.

Don't be silly. Pending evidence, belief in the existence of abstract or non-physical things is irrational. So if 'the mind' is physical - and of course it is - talk of reality's dependence on or independence from 'the mind' is absurd. And your 'indirect realism' dodge is pointless.

The evolutionary history of the mind is tied to the development of the nervous system, which led to the formation of brains.
As brains became more complex, the number and capacity of mental functions increased with particular brain areas dedicated to specific mental functions. Individual human minds also develop as they learn from experience and pass through psychological stages in the process of aging. Some people are affected by mental disorders, for which certain mental capacities do not function as they should.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 2:42 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 10:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 3:13 am
You got is wrong.
With reference to Kant's noumenon or thing-in-itself, there is no-something of substance at all; it is merely a thought there is something but actually it is an empty thought, like thinking there is a square-circle or Santa Claus that exist as real which is an impossibility.

In the case of brain-in-a-vat, what you are interacting with are merely like things in a movie, but instead of 2D on a movies screen, it is 3D like a hallucination.
There is no something-that-is-real to it, it is just a projection from the brain and mind.

Well, if there is no reality then we are an example of the brain in the vat.

That is a strawman.

I did not say there is no reality.

What is reality [ultimate] is not something that is not recognizable, and that there is something [absolutely] mind independent and you cannot tell exactly what it is.

Whatever is reality is contingent upon a specific collective-of-subjects, human-based framework and system [FS], which range from common sense to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.
One can know exactly what is reality but must be qualified to a specific human-based FS.

So, we are not a brain-in-a-vat. We have and know we are in reality [as defined above] and that is verifiable and justifiable from the common sense FS to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:34 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:38 am
That is a strawman [misinterpretation].

I did not assert an intricate PART of reality shapes ALL of external reality.
No person with basic intelligence will make such a contradictory claim.
A part is a part and it cannot be the Whole.

What I claim is,
humans and humanity are an intricate part of reality i.e. all there is, thus interrelated somehow to the whole of reality and all the things therein.

As such, the philosophical realist's [indirect realist] claim* reality and things are ABSOLUTELY interdependent of humans or human-mind, is false.

* Philosophical realism is:

No it's not a strawman. You can't be genuinely this stupid, it's just not possible.

Reality only exists if a mind is perceiving it = reality is mind-dependent.
Mere appearance in the eye of the beholder = reality is mind-dependent.
You say reality is mind-dependent, so reality is dependent on the mind. And you also say that reality is not mind-dependent, the mind is a part and parcel of the whole.

Again Kant's philosophy is refuted, if this is what he meant. A philosophy has to have internal consistency, has to make sense. Yours never once made sense.

I have not stated the above.
They are are all your own words and interpretation.

I have said my intended points above.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:38 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:56 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:58 pm Sack the fiction of the mind, and the silly question of reality's dependence on or independence from the mind evaporates, as does Kant's silly fake answer, along with the silly argument against philosophical realism. Simples.

Says the weird death-cultist. Don't tell others to try to commit mental suicide just because you did that. (And ultimately failed of course.) You can be very proud of yourself.

Don't be silly. Pending evidence, belief in the existence of abstract or non-physical things is irrational. So if 'the mind' is physical - and of course it is - talk of reality's dependence on or independence from 'the mind' is absurd. And your 'indirect realism' dodge is pointless.