Philosophy Now Forum

To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place? (Into the bin go constructivism, model-dependent realism and other once-fashionable 'anti-realisms'.)

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions, why is it a framework and system of knowledge? It seems to be a framework and system of illusions. I hereby invent the FSI.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:38 am To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place? (Into the bin go constructivism, model-dependent realism and other once-fashionable 'anti-realisms'.)

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions, why is it a framework and system of knowledge? It seems to be a framework and system of illusions. I hereby invent the FSI.

Call them illusions. Call them knowledge. Call them lies. It doesn't matter what you call them.

Neither the desciption nor the "call sign" is the described.

What matters is that the models/illusions/knowledge/lies being described exist. Objectively.

Everything else is moral bargaining.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:38 am To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place? (Into the bin go constructivism, model-dependent realism and other once-fashionable 'anti-realisms'.)

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions, why is it a framework and system of knowledge? It seems to be a framework and system of illusions. I hereby invent the FSI.

You are insulting your own intelligence with the above.
Who is claiming "To construct a model of reality is to construct reality."

The point is,
to construct a model of reality is to enable reality to be constructed.
For example, car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.

Humans do not "construct" their model of reality.
ALL humans are evolved and are programmed with basic evolved-Framework and System of Reality [FSR[ and Knowledge [FSK].

These basic FSKs continue to evolve into different FSKs for example the emergence of the science-FSK which is the most credible and reliable.

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions, ..

How can you be so ignorant?
The scientific FSK provides us with scientific facts, truths and knowledge which has contributed the progress of humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:59 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:38 am To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place? (Into the bin go constructivism, model-dependent realism and other once-fashionable 'anti-realisms'.)

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions, why is it a framework and system of knowledge? It seems to be a framework and system of illusions. I hereby invent the FSI.

You are insulting your own intelligence with the above.
Who is claiming "To construct a model of reality is to construct reality."

The point is,
to construct a model of reality is to enable reality to be constructed.
For example, car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.

This is a ridiculous analogy. You're saying that we construct a model of reality in order to construct reality. How dreadful does your argument have to become before you recognise and abandon it?

Humans do not "construct" their model of reality.

This is precisely what constructivists say we do.

ALL humans are evolved and are programmed with basic evolved-Framework and System of Reality [FSR[ and Knowledge [FSK].

These basic FSKs continue to evolve into different FSKs for example the emergence of the science-FSK which is the most credible and reliable.

But the reason why natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge is because they discover facts about reality. You want it both ways: 'there are no independent facts; but the sciences discover independent facts.' What codswallop.

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions

How can you be so ignorant?
The scientific FSK provides us with scientific facts, truths and knowledge which has contributed the progress of humanity.

But you say that what we call reality is an illusion.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 8:46 am But the reason why natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge is because they discover facts about reality.

That's not true.

Scientists construct models in an attempt to account for our experiences. When the predictions of those models agree with our experiences more often than they don't we call that "knowledge".

Why does an apple fall to the ground when I drop it?

Scientist 1: Gravity.
Scientist 2: Technically it's just as accurate to say that the apple falls towards the ground; as it is to say that the ground falls towards the apple.

So what is the fact that has been discovered here?

Is that apples fall towards grounds?
Is it that grounds fall towards apples?
Is it that the distance between grounds and apples shortens when I let go off the apple?

For all we know epistemological solipsism is true.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 8:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:59 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:38 am To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place? (Into the bin go constructivism, model-dependent realism and other once-fashionable 'anti-realisms'.)

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions, why is it a framework and system of knowledge? It seems to be a framework and system of illusions. I hereby invent the FSI.

You are insulting your own intelligence with the above.
Who is claiming "To construct a model of reality is to construct reality."

The point is,
to construct a model of reality is to enable reality to be constructed.
For example, car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.

This is a ridiculous analogy. You're saying that we construct a model of reality in order to construct reality. How dreadful does your argument have to become before you recognise and abandon it?

There is nothing wrong with the above analogy.
Show me where it is wrong?

The above analogy is to counter your erroneous claim which you believed [thought] I agree with;
"To construct a model of reality is to construct reality."
I don't agree with the above literally.

The main points I am in agreement with 'Constructivism' is in the OP; which does not mean constructing reality literally as you think so.

Humans do not "construct" their model of reality.

This is precisely what constructivists say we do.

Not in the sense of total reality.
The main them of "Constructivism" as mentioned in the OP is anti-philosophical realism, i.e. reject human-independent reality or mind-independence.

ALL humans are evolved and are programmed with basic evolved-Framework and System of Reality [FSR[ and Knowledge [FSK].

These basic FSKs continue to evolve into different FSKs for example the emergence of the science-FSK which is the most credible and reliable.

But the reason why natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge is because they discover facts about reality. You want it both ways: 'there are no independent facts; but the sciences discover independent facts.' What codswallop.

Note my counter to your above in this same thread;
viewtopic.php?p=642746#p642746
You're a coward to ignore it.

Why the Natural Science-FSK has the highest credibility is not because it has discovered what you defined as 'fact' or "fact of the matter".
Your 'what is fact' or "fact of the matter" is illusory.
As such natural scientists will never discover your 'what is fact' and 'the fact of the matter'.

Note this;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
depend on the various criteria as listed therein.

The scientific FSK has accepted many 'scientific facts' and discarded them thereafter when new evidences proved otherwise.

Whatever natural scientists discover as scientific facts must be conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK.
What are scientific facts are true as long as they satisfy the conditions and requirements of the human-based scientific FSK.

No true scientists will claim their human-based FSK scientific facts are the absolute independent fact and the-matter of fact.

Scientists are deluded if they insist 'water is H20' in the absolute independent sense without any qualification to the scientific FSK.

Note I have stated, at present most scientists do no accept the statement 'water is H20' because they know this statement is not highly true. In this case, it would be insulting to their intelligence to insist 'water is H20'.

Note this thread;
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40081
Prove to me, the fact of the matter exists as real?

If a framework and system of knowledge provides us with nothing but illusions

How can you be so ignorant?
The scientific FSK provides us with scientific facts, truths and knowledge which has contributed the progress of humanity.

But you say that what we call reality is an illusion.

When I state "Reality is an illusion" it is in relation to what you claim reality as real and human-independence [mind independence].
You claim your human independent fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is as really real, I counter that is an illusion.

What is really real for me is that reality that is conditioned upon a human-based FSK, of which the scientific FSK is the more credible and reliable. This reality is soundly grounded on empirical and human experiences as realized, verified and justified within a human-based FSK.

On the other hand, you are speculating on an illusion as reality; what is reality to you is beyond the empirical, realization via FSK, beyond words, meanings and even yourself.

All meaning is biologically dependent, so, guess how morality is going to be made objective or manifested in the world--- it is the duh factor.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 2:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 8:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:59 am
You are insulting your own intelligence with the above.
Who is claiming "To construct a model of reality is to construct reality."

The point is,
to construct a model of reality is to enable reality to be constructed.
For example, car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.

This is a ridiculous analogy. You're saying that we construct a model of reality in order to construct reality. How dreadful does your argument have to become before you recognise and abandon it?

There is nothing wrong with the above analogy.
Show me where it is wrong?

Well, now. Have a look at these two assertions.

1 Car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.
2 We construct a model of reality, so that we can construct real realities in reality.

As you can see, this is a false analogy. 'Constructing a model' means something different in each case.

The scientific FSK has accepted many 'scientific facts' and discarded them thereafter when new evidences proved otherwise.

Correct. But have a really hard think about what this means. 'New evidences' of what? If facts are 'conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge', how can anything outside that framework and system of knowledge affect the framework and system of knowledge?

The standing question you have never faced up to is this: knowledge is knowledge of or about something - (leaving aside performative or how-to knowledge). So of what is a framework and system of knowledge - knowledge? It can't be knowledge of itself - of its own 'facts'. If it were - and this is the kicker - scientific knowledge could never change in the way that you recognise it most definitely does and will.

Point is, the 'what is scientific knowledge about' is the real world - the world of facts that we discover rather than construct. What we construct is ways of describing it.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 4:09 am All meaning is biologically dependent, so, guess how morality is going to be made objective or manifested in the world--- it is the duh factor.

Meaning is a property of language. Morality is not about the meaning of words; or the use of language, except in the cases where we are explicitly dealing with the immoral use of language e.g lying.

It's only "the duh factor" for idiot-philosophers stuck in the language game paradigm.

If morality is subjective and arbitrary then absolutely no philosopher can account for why they are enforcing linguistic norms.
Let communication break down - so what? Are you saying there's something wrong with the social havoc that ensues as direct result of miscommuniction?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 6:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 2:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 8:46 am
This is a ridiculous analogy. You're saying that we construct a model of reality in order to construct reality. How dreadful does your argument have to become before you recognise and abandon it?

There is nothing wrong with the above analogy.
Show me where it is wrong?

Well, now. Have a look at these two assertions.

1 Car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.
2 We construct a model of reality, so that we can construct real realities in reality.

As you can see, this is a false analogy. 'Constructing a model' means something different in each case.

Strawman!

I wrote;
The point is,
to construct a model of reality is to enable reality to be constructed.
For example, car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.

Porsche constructed a model of a Porsche 718 which enable Porsche to construct real Porsche 718s as reality.
I don't see anything wrong with the above, it is very realistic.

The scientific FSK has accepted many 'scientific facts' and discarded them thereafter when new evidences proved otherwise.

Correct. But have a really hard think about what this means. 'New evidences' of what? If facts are 'conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge', how can anything outside that framework and system of knowledge affect the framework and system of knowledge?

You are confused.
There is nothing 'outside' like your human independent facts [what] which is illusory.

"Evidence" means empirical evidence within the human-based FSK, it cannot be something outside the human-based FSK.

The standing question you have never faced up to is this: knowledge is knowledge of or about something - (leaving aside performative or how-to knowledge). So of what is a framework and system of knowledge - knowledge? It can't be knowledge of itself - of its own 'facts'. If it were - and this is the kicker - scientific knowledge could never change in the way that you recognise it most definitely does and will.

You keep sticking to your "what is fact" which is human-independent thus illusory.

I have stated there are two phases to the knowledge of something, i.e.
1. the realization and emergence of the things that is internal within the human based FSK.
2. the perception, knowledge of, and description of that things.

It is knowledge of its realization and emergence.

Crudely, one can have knowledge of the chair one has created.
In this case, in the ultimate sense the created chair cannot be absolutely independent of the creator and the knower of that chair.

The case of general reality is similar but more complex which you are unable to grasp.

Point is, the 'what is scientific knowledge about' is the real world - the world of facts that we discover rather than construct. What we construct is ways of describing it.

Note the use of 'construct' in the case of 'Constructivism' is very loose and metaphorical and you cannot apply it literally.

You still have have not prove your world of facts exist [feature of reality, i.e. just-is, being so, that is the case] as real absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Give examples to explain your case? Produce your real facts for all to confirm?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:45 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 6:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 2:17 am
There is nothing wrong with the above analogy.
Show me where it is wrong?

Well, now. Have a look at these two assertions.

1 Car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.
2 We construct a model of reality, so that we can construct real realities in reality.

Strawman!

I wrote;
The point is,
to construct a model of reality is to enable reality to be constructed.
For example, car manufacturers construct a model of a car, so that they can construct real cars in reality.

It's just called planning.

How to get from the present to the future.

Followed by execution/reification.

Actually bringing about the future.

1 We construct a model of a car in order to construct a car.

2 We construct a model of reality in order to construct reality.

Same thing. Obvs.

(Face palm.)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:45 am You still have have not prove your world of facts exist [feature of reality, i.e. just-is, being so, that is the case] as real absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Give examples to explain your case? Produce your real facts for all to confirm?

If there is no world independent of human perception and theory, then there can be no explanation for the order in human experience. Subjective experience cannot create its own internal order. Something other than the experience must be causing it.

If you would only grasp this simple point, this entire futile discussion could be brought to a merciful end.

CIN wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 12:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:45 am You still have have not prove your world of facts exist [feature of reality, i.e. just-is, being so, that is the case] as real absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Give examples to explain your case? Produce your real facts for all to confirm?

If there is no world independent of human perception and theory, then there can be no explanation for the order in human experience. Subjective experience cannot create its own internal order. Something other than the experience must be causing it.

If you would only grasp this simple point, this entire futile discussion could be brought to a merciful end.

"Never mistake appearance for reality." Plato

The Twilight of Billy Idol, or How to Philosophize with an MC Hammer (1888).

"The true world — attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it. (The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")

The true world — unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents"). (Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)

The true world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a consolation, an obligation, an imperative. (At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)

The true world — unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us? (Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)

The "true" world — an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating — an idea which has become useless and superfluous — consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it! (Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one. (Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)"