Reality is an Emergence

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed this point I wrote earlier;

But when you are thinking of your mother, the resultant of the thinking process is the thought-of-your-mother.

Do you dispute this point?

I added this later;

Note the common point we hear often,
'a thought came to mind'
which is a resultant of one's thinking process.

• Thought = an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.
  Google Dictionary

If I think of a perfect circle, the thinking and the perfect circle are two separate things. That circle is not a part of my thinking of it. It is not in my mind.

Still cannot see the point?

Here again,

• 1. All humans has a brain that thinks
  2. The thinking process produced thoughts in the brain and onto consciousness.
  3. Thoughts are the resultant of the thinking process.
  4. The resultant-thought is not the object-of-thought e.g. the apple

Thus

• 1. I can think of an apple
  2. The resultant of such a thinking is the thought-of-an-apple.
  3. The real apple is not a part of my thinking but provide a basis for my thinking of the apple.

Note in the case a perfect circle is an impossible empirical idea.
Nevertheless you can have a thought-of-a-perfect-circle.
Since a perfect circle is an impossibility there is not question of it existing outside your thought of it.

It is like;

I can think of 'I can fly' on my own effort like a bird.
Thus the resultant is a thought of 'I can fly'.
But we know in reality, there is no way I can fly like a bird, but nevertheless I can have such a thought from my thinking process.

[tapaticmadness]

Still cannot see the point?

Here again,

• 1. All humans has a brain that thinks
  2. The thinking process produced thoughts in the brain and onto consciousness.
  3. Thoughts are the resultant of the thinking process.
  4. The resultant-thought is not the object-of-thought e.g. the apple

Thus

• 1. I can think of an apple
  2. The resultant of such a thinking is the thought-of-an-apple.
  3. The real apple is not a part of my thinking but provide a basis for my thinking of the apple.

Note in the case a perfect circle is an impossible empirical idea.
Nevertheless you can have a thought-of-a-perfect-circle.
Since a perfect circle is an impossibility there is not question of it existing outside your thought of it.

It is like;

I can think of 'I can fly' on my own effort like a bird.
Thus the resultant is a thought of 'I can fly'.
But we know in reality, there is no way I can fly like a bird, but nevertheless I can have such a thought from my thinking process.

You seem to be saying that if the object of one's thinking is impossible or not something actual, then it must be "in the mind". If I imagine I can fly, but I can't, then the object is something mental or In the mind. This is actually a very old philosophical puzzle of how we can think of what doesn't exist. Most commonly today, people will say that the "non-existent" thing is just in your mind. I, as a classical realist, would say that the "non-existent" thing is a real thing, external to the mind, but not under the mode of actuality. So paradoxically I say that "non-existent" things do exist. That's why I used quotation marks. There is no such thing as something just in your mind. Everything thinkable is external to the mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Still cannot see the point?

Here again,

• 1. All humans has a brain that thinks
  2. The thinking process produced thoughts in the brain and onto consciousness.
  3. Thoughts are the resultant of the thinking process.
  4. The resultant-thought is not the object-of-thought e.g. the apple

Thus

• 1. I can think of an apple
  2. The resultant of such a thinking is the thought-of-an-apple.
  3. The real apple is not a part of my thinking but provide a basis for my thinking of the apple.

Note in the case a perfect circle is an impossible empirical idea.
Nevertheless you can have a thought-of-a-perfect-circle.
Since a perfect circle is an impossibility there is not question of it existing outside your thought of it.

It is like;

I can think of 'I can fly' on my own effort like a bird.
Thus the resultant is a thought of 'I can fly'.
But we know in reality, there is no way I can fly like a bird, but nevertheless I can have such a thought from my thinking process.

You seem to be saying that if the object of one's thinking is impossible or not something actual, then it must be "in the mind". If I imagine I can fly, but I can't, then the object is something mental or In the mind. This is actually a very old philosophical puzzle of how we can think of what doesn't exist. Most commonly today, people will say that the "non-existent" thing is just in your mind.

You are still missing the point;

Whatever object or idea one is thinking,
the first thing is, regardless of whatever is thought of, it is a thought in the mind.
then we ask,
is this thought-in-the-mind represented by a real object external to the mind.

I, as a classical realist, would say that the "non-existent" thing is a real thing, external to the mind, but not under the mode of actuality. So paradoxically I say that "non-existent" things do exist. That's why I used quotation marks. There is no such thing as something just in your mind. Everything thinkable is external to the mind.

You are conflating the terms.

The thought itself [the neural processes of thinking] of the non-existent thing is the real thing.
What is "non-existent" cannot be "real" as defined and commonly agreed upon.

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

You are using rhetoric to twist and mislead.

One inherent nature of the human mind [brain] is to think.
Everything thinkable is by its nature is "IN" the mind.
What is thought in mind and proven to exists external to the mind, exists external to the mind.
What is thought and is non-existent [not real] is limited to within the mind only.

[tapaticmadness]

One inherent nature of the human mind [brain] is to think.
Everything thinkable is by its nature is "IN" the mind.
What is thought in mind and proven to exists external to the mind, exists external to the mind.
What is thought and is non-existent [not real] is limited to within the mind only.

So we agree that for you the direct object thought is IN the mind. There may and then again there may not be a corresponding thing external to the mind. For me there is no object in the mind. What we directly know and see in thought exists external to the mind. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities ... ew-realism

This dialectic of internal vs. external takes me back to what I posted a couple of pages back. It is by Camille Paglia in Sexual Personae

“Apollonian form was derived from Egypt but perfected in Greece. Coleridge says, “The Greeks idolized the finite,” while Northern Europeans have “a tendency to the infinite.” Spengler similarly identifies the modern “Faustian soul” with “pure and limitless space.” Following Nietzsche, he calls the Apollonian “the principle of visible limits” and applies it to the Greek city-state: “All that lay beyond the visual range of this political atom was alien.” The Greek statue, “the empirical visible body,” symbolizes classical reality: “the material, the optically definite, the comprehensible, the immediately present.” The Greeks were, in my phrase, visionary materialists. They saw things and persons hard and glittery, radiant with Apollonian glamour. We know the Maenadic Dionysus mainly through the impressionistic medium of Archaic vase painting. He appears in statue form only when he loses his beard and female garb and turns ephebic Olympian, in the fifth century and after. High classic Athenian culture is based on Apollonian definitiveness and externality. “The whole tendency of Greek philosophy after Plato,” remarks Gilbert Murray, “was away from the outer world towards the world of the soul.” The shift of Greek thought from outer to inner parallels the shift in art from the male to the female nude, from homosexual to heterosexual taste. Spengler says of Greek society, “What was far away, invisible, was ipso facto ‘not there’.” I cited Karen Horney’s observation that a woman cannot see her own genitals. The Greek world-view was predicated on the model of absolute outwardness of male sex organs. Athenian culture flourished in externalities, the open air of the agora and the nudity of the palestra. There are no female nudes in major fifth-century art because female sexuality was imaginatively “not there,” buried like the Furies turned Eumenides. To the old complaint that the Greeks gave their statues the genitals of little boys, one could reply that the male nude offers the whole body as a projected genital. The modestly stooping Knidian Aphrodite marks the turn toward spiritual and sexual internality. It is the end of Apollo.”

[Veritas Aequitas]

One inherent nature of the human mind [brain] is to think.
Everything thinkable is by its nature is "IN" the mind.
What is thought in mind and proven to exists external to the mind, exists external to the mind.
What is thought and is non-existent [not real] is limited to within the mind only.

So we agree that for you the direct object thought is IN the mind.
There may and then again there may not be a corresponding thing external to the mind.

Yes, the above is my view.
Note the term "IN" is contentious but I will accept it as in the above at present.

For me there is no object in the mind.

I agree with the above as well.
There is no 'external object' in the mind, what is in mind is merely the thought-of-the-external-object.
According to Russell, the thought is represented by sense-data and neural activities within the brain.

What we directly know and see in thought exists external to the mind. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities ... ew-realism

The Austrian philosophers Franz Brentano and Alexius Meinong first enunciated the cardinal tenet of this new realism: that what the mind knows or perceives exists independently of the acts of knowing and perceiving.

This is no difference from Philosophical Realism, i.e.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

As I had argued, Philosophical Realism aka or New Realism is acceptable relatively but at the ultimate level, it is not realistic and at the worst illusory - if insisting, note "Maya."

[tapaticmadness]

As I had argued, Philosophical Realism aka or New Realism is acceptable relatively but at the ultimate level, it is not realistic and at the worst illusory - if insisting, note "Maya."

Please explain more what you mean by the distinction relative vs. ultimate.

[tapaticmadness]

As I had argued, Philosophical Realism aka or New Realism is acceptable relatively but at the ultimate level, it is not realistic and at the worst illusory - if insisting, note "Maya."

I think you have hit one one of the main differences between Realism and Idealism and between Realism and Nominalism. Also between those realistic philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism and the non-realistic ones, such as Vedanta and most Buddhism.

Realism always believes that difference is real and ultimate. The others obviously don't. They think it is illusory. My favorite philosopher, a realist, wrote. "The differences among some of the several existents are very great indeed. I, for one, would not hesitate to call them momentous, or enormous. That, I submit is a major source of the resistance serious ontology has always met. For these differences are much greater than most are prepared to face." Gustav Bergmann.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had argued, Philosophical Realism aka or New Realism is acceptable relatively but at the ultimate level, it is not realistic and at the worst illusory - if insisting, note "Maya."

Please explain more what you mean by the distinction relative vs. ultimate.

It is not relative versus ultimate, they are not inversely correlated.

Btw, I don't agree with the ideology of Philosophical Realism aka or New Realism, but the idea of an external world definitely has survival value as humans are 'programmed' for an external world to facilitate survival.
Therefore I agree with the idea of an external world but not as exclusively within the ideology of New Realism.

"Ultimate" meant as the highest level of consideration of reality, there is no absolutely external world independent of the human conditions.

Note this thread I raised;
The 'Independent External World' is Kindergarten Stuff.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29011

[tapaticmadness]

Note this thread I raised;
The 'Independent External World' is Kindergarten Stuff.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29011

I left a reply on that thread. How would you psychoanalyze a realist? Do you have an opinion about what makes him tick?

[tapaticmadness]

Note this thread I raised;
The 'Independent External World' is Kindergarten Stuff.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29011

I left a reply on that thread. How would you psychoanalyze a realist? Do you have an opinion about what makes him tick?

I think you would enjoy this very good book - https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this thread I raised;
The 'Independent External World' is Kindergarten Stuff.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29011

I left a reply on that thread. How would you psychoanalyze a realist? Do you have an opinion about what makes him tick?

I think you would enjoy this very good book - https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen ... e&ie=UTF-8

No place to download?

I have a general and broad understanding of the critical difference between Vedic Hinduism and Buddhism [Nagarjuna's] not Yogacara's.

[tapaticmadness]

I left a reply on that thread. How would you psychoanalyze a realist? Do you have an opinion about what makes him tick?

I think you would enjoy this very good book - https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen ... e&ie=UTF-8

No place to download?

I have a general and broad understanding of the critical difference between Vedic Hinduism and Buddhism [Nagarjuna's] not Yogacara's.

Sorry, I don't know of any place to download it. Actually it's been years since I read it, but I remember that the main difference between the Realism of Gangesha and the Idealism of Sankaracharya is the question of the existence of difference. Of all the schools of Hinduism, I would identify most closely with Nyaya and Vaisheshika.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this thread I raised;
The 'Independent External World' is Kindergarten Stuff.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29011

I left a reply on that thread. How would you psychoanalyze a realist? Do you have an opinion about what makes him tick?

As I had written in that OP, the 'realist' is enslaved and straight-jacketed by his deepest instincts that he can only see the very obvious external world and no other alternatives.

Note this comment by the early-Russell;

The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason.
To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.
As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given.
- Problem of Philosophy

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men.
The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.
If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body.
It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

The realist do reflect philosophically but is stuck with the independent external world and no further.

Note how Hume demonstrated there is no absolute causation except that it is ultimately within the minds of humans, i.e. due to the psychological impulses of constant conjunction, habits and customs.

Note Kant's Copernican Revolution to resolve the failure of the idea of an external object and world;

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis.
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think you would enjoy this very good book - https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen ... e&ie=UTF-8

No place to download?

I have a general and broad understanding of the critical difference between Vedic Hinduism and Buddhism [Nagarjuna's] not Yogacara's.

Sorry, I don't know of any place to download it. Actually it's been years since I read it, but I remember that the main difference between the Realism of Gangesha and the Idealism of Sankaracharya is the question of the existence of difference. Of all the schools of Hinduism, I would identify most closely with Nyaya and Vaisheshika.

Except for any non-theistic Hinduism [?], all other Hindu philosophies are reducible to the idea of Brahman which is equivalent to the ultimate God of theists.

One point to note;

Nyaya school shares some of its methodology and human suffering foundations with Buddhism; however, a key difference between the two is that Buddhism believes that there is neither a soul nor self;[13]
Nyaya school like other schools of Hinduism believes that there is a soul and self, with liberation (moksha) as a state of removal of ignorance, wrong knowledge, the gain of correct knowledge and unimpeded continuation of self.
-wiki

Mine leaning is towards Buddhism's i.e. no soul nor self.

Why the Nyaya believe in a soul [illusory] driven by psychological impulses from the existential crisis.

For for Nyaya being 'realism' that is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realist, especially of Kant's.

[tapaticmadness]

My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realist, especially of Kant's.

I'm going to reply to you, but right now I am going to go out and try to evade the police during this lockdown because of Covid-19. I'm going to look for a whole chicken I can cook in my toaster oven. I learned how to cook from my mother and she was a bad cook so now I am also. The boy who cooks and cleans for me is now stuck in his village unable to get out because there are no buses running.
I definitely have some ideas about the topic of realism vs. whatever it is you call your philosophy. I'll be back soon - or in jail.