Philosophy Now Forum

Here is the counter to the typical claim that an absolute independent external world exists.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 6:58 am After a decade, VA still can't see the mountain-sized error in: "I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

A smart 10-year-old would spot the non-sequitur in 5 seconds

Strawman!
I had never made the statement,
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

My argument;
1. Reality [A] is all there is.
2. Humans [.B] are intricately part and parcel of reality - all there is.
3. Therefore humans [.B] cannot be absolute independent of reality - all there is [A] - which they are intricately part and parcel of.



"A" in this case is all humans within "B" reality - all there is.
"B" here is indicated with a circular line, reality is an open system without any circular lines.

If anyone is claiming to be very smart,
prove the external world exists absolute independent of humans entanglement, i.e. as standalone by itself, i.e. A being a circle outside the reality [external world] circle B.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:34 am Here is the counter to the typical claim that an absolute independent external world exists.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 6:58 am After a decade, VA still can't see the mountain-sized error in: "I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

A smart 10-year-old would spot the non-sequitur in 5 seconds

Strawman!
I had never made the statement,
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

My argument;
1. Reality is all there is.
2. Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality - all there is.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolute independent of reality - all there is - which they are intricately part and parcel of.



"A" in this case is all humans within "B" reality - all there is.
"B" here is indicated with a circular line, reality is an open system without any circular lines.

If anyone is claiming to be very smart,
prove the external world exists absolute independent of humans entanglement, i.e. as standalone by itself, i.e. A being a circle outside the reality [external world] circle B.

Strawman, no one here is arguing for an absolutely independent external world. But we already told you this about 50-100 times.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:34 am .

VA can't grasp that the opposite of "absolutely independent" isn't "human-dependent". It's somewhat interesting that there are people who can't do this.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:34 am .

VA can't grasp that the opposite of "absolutely independent" isn't "human-dependent". It's somewhat interesting that there are people who can't do this.

What a mess?

Your OP imply that I am claiming the external world is human-dependent [mental modes in mind], therefore there is no independent external world.
I countered that is not my view so I offered my view with an example of a set.

By your argument that I need need mental modes to support my claim there is no external world,
then it is only logical you don't need mental modes to support the existence of the external world.
This mean for you that the external world must be independent of the mental modes which is inherent tied to human beings.

My addition of 'absolute' is to make sure [as it often does with others] they do not bring all sort of diversions related to independence.

What is 'absolute' independent in reflected in the realist [philosophical realist] claim, i.e.

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
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 ...
Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[7]

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.

So my point remain;
If anyone is claiming to be very smart,
prove the external world exists absolute independent of humans entanglement, i.e. as standalone by itself, i.e. A being a circle outside the reality [external world] circle B.
You can avoid the word 'absolute' if you want to.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:12 am What a mess?

Your OP imply that I am claiming the external world is human-dependent [mental modes in mind], therefore there is no independent external world.
I countered that is not my view so I offered my view with an example of a set.

By your argument that I need need mental modes to support my claim there is no external world,
then it is only logical you don't need mental modes to support the existence of the external world.
This mean for you that the external world must be independent of the mental modes which is inherent tied to human beings.

Yes I think, but who knows which meaning of "independent" you are using here, your English is unreadable.
And it's always "the external world is probably" instead of "the external world must be".

My addition of 'absolute' is to make sure [as it often does with others] they do not bring all sort of diversions related to independence.

Adding 'absolute' is a major diversion, probably nothing is absolutely independent in the known universe.

Actually I think you just refuted your own position by showing that the external world can be independent of human mentality.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:12 am What a mess?

Your OP imply that I am claiming the external world is human-dependent [mental modes in mind], therefore there is no independent external world.
I countered that is not my view so I offered my view with an example of a set.

By your argument that I need need mental modes to support my claim there is no external world,
then it is only logical you don't need mental modes to support the existence of the external world.
This mean for you that the external world must be independent of the mental modes which is inherent tied to human beings.

Yes I think, but who knows which meaning of "independent" you are using here, your English is unreadable.
And it's always "the external world is probably" instead of "the external world must be".

My addition of 'absolute' is to make sure [as it often does with others] they do not bring all sort of diversions related to independence.

Adding 'absolute' is a major diversion, probably nothing is absolutely independent in the known universe.

Actually I think you just refuted your own position by showing that the external world can be independent of human mentality.

Where did I state
"the external world can be independent of human mentality."
I had been arguing against such a point all the way.

You are the one who is implying
"the external world can be independent of human mentality"
when you insulted my views in the OP.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:34 am Strawman!
I had never made the statement,
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

My argument;
1. Reality [A] is all there is.
2. Humans [.B] are intricately part and parcel of reality - all there is.
3. Therefore humans [.B] cannot be absolute independent of reality - all there is [A] - which they are intricately part and parcel of.

So, since the conclusion is drawn from logic at the universal level, it is a half-truth.
My support for this conclusion is...
viewtopic.php?p=571101#p571101

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:39 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:12 am What a mess?

Your OP imply that I am claiming the external world is human-dependent [mental modes in mind], therefore there is no independent external world.
I countered that is not my view so I offered my view with an example of a set.

By your argument that I need need mental modes to support my claim there is no external world,
then it is only logical you don't need mental modes to support the existence of the external world.
This mean for you that the external world must be independent of the mental modes which is inherent tied to human beings.

Yes I think, but who knows which meaning of "independent" you are using here, your English is unreadable.
And it's always "the external world is probably" instead of "the external world must be".

My addition of 'absolute' is to make sure [as it often does with others] they do not bring all sort of diversions related to independence.

Adding 'absolute' is a major diversion, probably nothing is absolutely independent in the known universe.

Actually I think you just refuted your own position by showing that the external world can be independent of human mentality.

Where did I state
"the external world can be independent of human mentality."
I had been arguing against such a point all the way.

You are the one who is implying
"the external world can be independent of human mentality"
when you insulted my views in the OP.

You aren't talkin about absolute independence, and you acknowledge that humans are part and parcel of reality. So you admit that there is an external world independent of human mentality.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:39 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:35 am
Yes I think, but who knows which meaning of "independent" you are using here, your English is unreadable.
And it's always "the external world is probably" instead of "the external world must be".


Adding 'absolute' is a major diversion, probably nothing is absolutely independent in the known universe.

Actually I think you just refuted your own position by showing that the external world can be independent of human mentality.

Where did I state
"the external world can be independent of human mentality."
I had been arguing against such a point all the way.

You are the one who is implying
"the external world can be independent of human mentality"
when you insulted my views in the OP.

You aren't talkin about absolute independence, and you acknowledge that humans are part and parcel of reality. So you admit that there is an external world independent of human mentality.

How can I admit there is an external world independent of human mentality when I claim humans are part and parcel of reality?

My view is always about 'absolute' independence where the crunch is necessary, i.e. when the point is crucial.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:39 am
Where did I state
"the external world can be independent of human mentality."
I had been arguing against such a point all the way.

You are the one who is implying
"the external world can be independent of human mentality"
when you insulted my views in the OP.

You aren't talkin about absolute independence, and you acknowledge that humans are part and parcel of reality. So you admit that there is an external world independent of human mentality.

How can I admit there is an external world independent of human mentality when I claim humans are part and parcel of reality?

My view is always about 'absolute' independence where the crunch is necessary, i.e. when the point is crucial.

So then you ARE talking about absolute independence.

We told you about 50-100 times that almost no one is arguing for that today. The idea of absolute independence was refuted over 100 years ago.

After being told this 50-100 times, why haven't you been able to comprehend?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:34 am Here is the counter to the typical claim that an absolute independent external world exists.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 6:58 am After a decade, VA still can't see the mountain-sized error in: "I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

A smart 10-year-old would spot the non-sequitur in 5 seconds

Strawman!
I had never made the statement,
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

My argument;
1. Reality [A] is all there is.

There is so much baggage right here, it's difficult to know where to start.
Suffice it to say that this is a speculation employing words for which other have a range of meanings for them.

2. Humans [.B] are intricately part and parcel of reality - all there is.

Depends.

3. Therefore humans [.B] cannot be absolute independent of reality - all there is [A] - which they are intricately part and parcel of.



"A" in this case is all humans within "B" reality - all there is.
"B" here is indicated with a circular line, reality is an open system without any circular lines.

If anyone is claiming to be very smart,
prove the external world exists absolute independent of humans entanglement, i.e. as standalone by itself, i.e. A being a circle outside the reality [external world] circle B.

The main problem with al this, is that you do not really grasp perception, and without understanding that nothing here is worthwhile.
Since we can only know the world through out perception of it, your argument is just speculation.

There can't be an independent reality, because there is too much weight to the paradigm, that God's sex aristocracy is a murder-inevitability syndrome which also utilises biology styles designed to intimidate as The Exact Same Murder Inevitability syndrome.

At the climax, of the second syndrome, Sandy Hook (The Woman in Blue) was in conjunction with Joe Pesci's ghost, in which the second person unified Blue with Boo - through visual language power selections, Dracula 2000's Mary heller was the Hell on Earth

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:43 am
You aren't talkin about absolute independence, and you acknowledge that humans are part and parcel of reality. So you admit that there is an external world independent of human mentality.

How can I admit there is an external world independent of human mentality when I claim humans are part and parcel of reality?

My view is always about 'absolute' independence where the crunch is necessary, i.e. when the point is crucial.

So then you ARE talking about absolute independence.

We told you about 50-100 times that almost no one is arguing for that today. The idea of absolute independence was refuted over 100 years ago.

After being told this 50-100 times, why haven't you been able to comprehend?

Who are your 'we'.

Note I highlighted this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#:
The implication therein is about 'absolute independence' even though the term 'absolute' is not mentioned.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 3:46 am Who are your 'we'.

Note I highlighted this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#:
The implication therein is about 'absolute independence' even though the term 'absolute' is not mentioned.

That's insane. Realism doesn't imply absolute independence, that's why it's not mentioned.
Absolutely independent things are absolutely independent from us so we absolutely can't say anything about them.

I think this is all worth repeating. The guy spends years dividing all philosophy into the realism vs anti-realism camps, basing everything on this issue, while totally misunderstanding what realism even means today.

So he thinks the opposite of "absolute independent" is "human-dependent". Which leads to him denying the existence of the external world, ultimately making him a solipsist. Then he tries to drag Kant down to his level by making Kant a solipsist too. While not realizing any of this.

And because he is in this hole he dug himself into, he has misunderstood pretty much every single counterargument to his claims, that people made on this forum. He even adopts a permanent better-than-thou attitude.

To me, this is all fascinating in a bizarre way.