The Philosophy Discussion Forum

4. How does reality surprise us, collectively? Humanity was apparently surprised to find that heavier objects don't fall faster, when Galileo started dropping things off towers. If reality is being co-created, things like gravity, relativity, chemistry, quantum physics - they point to it at least not being co-created by the most popular ideas. Which people manifested these things into reality, overriding popular beliefs?

You are assuming humans are Gods with omniscient, that what humans deemed as 'reality' is the ultimately-reality regardless of whether there are any living things to realize it or not.

The point is a one-celled living organism will "cognize" reality relative his its nature.
Humans will cognize relative to its nature.
Aliens [possible to exist] 100 [1000 or >] times which are more cognizant will cognize relative to its nature.

Humans [Philosophical realists] will extrapolate there is an ultimate objective reality other than what they are perceiving.
This is what you are doing..
you are assuming humans are Gods with omniscient, that what humans deemed as 'reality' is the ultimately-reality regardless of whether there are any living things to realize it or not.
WHO ARE YOU [as a philosophical realist] to insist you are right?

The fact is you as a philosophical realist are insisting upon the above of a mind-independent reality is purely due to psychology driven by an evolution default of always focusing on the external to facilitate survival with neural algorithms inherited from ancestors [LUCA] dating back to >3.5 billion years ago.

Obvious a "focus on the external" is critical for survival but it need not be an "ism" i.e. the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism.

On finer reflective thinking, it is more realistic to accept that humans are intricately part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is, thus not a mind-independent reality in the ultimate sense.

When humans 'discover' facts, truths and knowledge, it is always conditioned upon a human-based-FSK conditioned upon human nature which is a priori conditioned upon 200K history of human evolution, 3.5 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billion years of physical expansion from the Big Bang.

If viruses, bacteria, animals [bats] or aliens [100 or >1000x more cognizant] were to realize reality, it must be qualified to their nature [conditions] and none of them can claim there is one universal objective reality.
In this sense, they are the co-creators [intertwined with] of their own relative reality.

The question is,
why must one [all other cognizant organisms] insist there is an ultimate objective independent of mind at all like the philosophical realists driven by psychology.

I argued, nothing is lost if we give up the idea of an ultimate mind-independent reality.
The only problem is, if a philosophical realist were to give up philosophical realism, he is likely to suffer a cold-turkey from cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.

Notes:

This thread starts off with a quote out of context and makes no effort whatsoever to contextualise it.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:11 am This thread starts off with a quote out of context and makes no effort whatsoever to contextualise it.

Note the point,
FH: If reality is being co-created, things like gravity, relativity, chemistry, quantum physics - they point to it at least not being co-created by the most popular ideas.

The OP counter the above.
Philosophical Realists [mind independence] do not agree humans are intertwined with the reality they are in because they assumed as if they are omniscient like a God.

What do any of those words mean?

This thread exists to be confusing apparently.

Have you posted the quote out of context, and failed to contextualise it, because you don't know what the context is?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:18 am What do any of those words mean?

This thread exists to be confusing apparently.

Basically,
what is I am asserting is,
philosophical realism is true if philosophical realists are like god with omniscient, i.e. all-knowing that reality is mind-independent.
But God does not exist as real, i.e. God is illusory.
Thus whatever the philosophical realist claims, it is illusory.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:24 am Have you posted the quote out of context, and failed to contextualise it, because you don't know what the context is?

Note I did not make reference to the original thread.

This OP is independent of that context, but dependent on the context in blue above.

Maybe if you tried to argue for that without making reference to an out of context quote I might understand what reasons you have for thinking all this. As it is, I see no connection to my quote and the things you're saying.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:29 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:24 am Have you posted the quote out of context, and failed to contextualise it, because you don't know what the context is?

Note I did not make reference to the original thread.

I didn't ask you to "make reference to the original thread". I asked you to contextualise the quote. You haven't done that.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:29 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:24 am Have you posted the quote out of context, and failed to contextualise it, because you don't know what the context is?

Note I did not make reference to the original thread.

I didn't ask you to "make reference to the original thread". I asked you to contextualise the quote. You haven't done that.

I am not too sure of the issue.
OK, I have removed "FH" from the quote.
The context for this is with reference to whatever is in the OP.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:42 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:29 am
Note I did not make reference to the original thread.

I didn't ask you to "make reference to the original thread". I asked you to contextualise the quote. You haven't done that.

I am not too sure of the issue.
OK, I have removed "FH" from the quote.
The context for this is with reference to whatever is in the OP.

You don't apparently understand the context in which the quote was made.

What is fh?

Your op starts with a question in the form of a quote. You've included no clarifying information about who that question is being asked to and why. It's not a very strong start for you.

Charles liked walks, he walked for hours and hours every day. The only day he didn't walk was when a category 5 hurricane hit his small town and flooded the entire settlement. Today there was no hurricane but the street was wet, puddles, small ones, every now and then. Charles walked ... and walked ... and walked some more ... and suddenly he bumped into a wall. He winced in pain, furiously rubbing his forehead. He looked at his fingers ... no blood. That's good he told himself. He did a 180 and walked back ... retracing his steps. He could do that, he had a phenomenal memory. After 15 minutes he saw the boy. He walked up to him, smiled, and readjusted the boy's baseball cap, it was at an angle, smiled, the boy grinned in return, and Charles resumed his walk, he loved to walk.