Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 8:46 am While we wait for ever for that, let's draw the obvious conclusion: the idea that reality is or could be 'mind-dependent' - that the existence of the universe depends on humans/human brains - is utterly incoherent.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:21 am Philosophical Realism [yours] claims that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

ChatGPT wrote:Philosophical realism is a broad and complex philosophical position that asserts the existence of an external reality independent of human minds. However, the claim of absolute mind-independence can vary depending on the specific form of realism being discussed. There are various types of philosophical realism, and each may have different nuances regarding the relationship between reality and the mind.

Classical realism, for example, asserts that the external world exists independently of our minds and is fundamentally the same for all observers. It posits that objects, properties, and relationships exist objectively and exist regardless of whether anyone is perceiving them.

On the other hand, critical realism is a more nuanced version of realism that acknowledges the existence of a mind-independent reality but also recognizes that our perceptions and understanding of reality are mediated by our cognitive processes and conceptual frameworks. In this sense, it doesn't claim absolute mind-independence but rather acknowledges the role of the mind in interpreting and understanding reality.

It's essential to note that some realists might argue for a form of realism that is closer to absolute mind-independence, while others might emphasize the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of reality. As with many philosophical positions, the specifics can be subject to ongoing debate and interpretation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:21 am I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am <blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:57 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am <blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

But "nature" and "the universe" are semantically synonymous and are therefore interchangeable in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

So what the hell do you mean when you talk about "the nature of the universe" e.g the nature of nature ?!?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

... same goes for "reality" and "universe". They are interchangeable.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

What the fuck are you talking about when you turn your ontological nouns into adjectives; or when you mix up terminology from different ontological theories?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 11:14 am Humans who have all their cognitive functions working, can process context, meaning. That's not something you can imagine. A word like "nature" can have multiple meanings, and it is automatically understood by these humans, which meaning of "nature" was used. Unless there was a misunderstanding, but this one with "nature" was pretty clear-cut.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:57 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am <blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

But "nature" and "the universe" are semantically synonymous and are therefore interchangeable in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

So what the hell do you mean when you talk about "the nature of the universe" e.g the nature of nature ?!?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

... same goes for "reality" and "universe". They are interchangeable.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

What the fuck are you talking about when you turn your ontological nouns into adjectives; or when you mix up terminology from different ontological theories?

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 11:35 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:57 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am <blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

But "nature" and "the universe" are semantically synonymous and are therefore interchangeable in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

So what the hell do you mean when you talk about "the nature of the universe" e.g the nature of nature ?!?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

... same goes for "reality" and "universe". They are interchangeable.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

What the fuck are you talking about when you turn your ontological nouns into adjectives; or when you mix up terminology from different ontological theories?

I'm curious about how VA views something. So I asked him about it in a few different ways.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

No, he thinks the realist model is wrong. So, I'm asking him about his model. I don't think he has laid out this before. So, I'm asking.

I know this is outrageous and should be treated as some horrible thesis I am putting forward. I'm sure what I wrote goes against many of your theist-ish rules.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 11:31 am If you only understand it "automatically" then you are nothing more than an automaton.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 11:58 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 11:31 am If you only understand it "automatically" then you are nothing more than an automaton.

This is another example of not being able to comprehend context, meaning.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 9:37 am Are you sure you aren't a chatbot?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 2:00 pm And, meanwhile, talk of reality being 'not mind-independent' is incoherent. In what way is the tree in my garden not independent from human brains?

I wonder what it will take for you to recognise that your argument is bollocks?

• Pando (Latin for "I spread")[1] is a clonal organism representing an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). It was identified as a single living organism because its parts possess identical genetic markers[2] and it is assumed to have a massive interconnected underground root system.
  Pando occupies 108 acres (43.6 ha) and is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000 tonnes (6,000,000 kg),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 4:43 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 2:00 pm And, meanwhile, talk of reality being 'not mind-independent' is incoherent. In what way is the tree in my garden not independent from human brains?

I wonder what it will take for you to recognise that your argument is bollocks?

Again, your knowledge and thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
Don't be hasty and arrogant to think my argument is bollocks when in reality your thinking and mind is boll-blocked.

Here is crude example.

Note the individual pando pines in the above image.
IF a pando-pine-tree [Y] is given self-consciousness, he will perceive the next and next pando pines as absolutely mind-independent from his mind.
But if that individual pine is knowledge, he will realize he is in fact connected via the root system to all other pando-pines around him.
As such, pando-pine-tree [Y] is not mind-independent but somehow related, connected, entangled with all the other pando-pine-treee.

• Pando (Latin for "I spread")[1] is a clonal organism representing an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). It was identified as a single living organism because its parts possess identical genetic markers[2] and it is assumed to have a massive interconnected underground root system.
  Pando occupies 108 acres (43.6 ha) and is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000 tonnes (6,000,000 kg),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Similarly, individual humans are like the pando-pines but we are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality.
The problem is this relation is not easy to grasp because the majority are too primal and hard cored wired with a consciousness of absolute mind-independence towards philosophical realism. Note,

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:21 am I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

So, you will be accused of that. IOW the problem with calling it mind-dependent is that people will make a presumably false accusation then. Or really they will say it means X, which it doesn't mean.

What does mind-dependence mean, then?

In terms of the universe. It doesn't mean that the universe came about because of an individual mind or collective minds, since it is clear from above that that would be a mistaken accusation. OK.

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe. Not that minds created the realist universe. IOW a mind created galaxies and thigns unseen and the Big Bang. IOW minds didn't create an external universe, what a realist thinks of as a mind independing set of things that started before humans and will continue after humans and other sentient life forms if they die out. And parts of it haven't be experienced by humans.

It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

Things only exist when experienced in your model, or?

What is the universe in your non-realist model? A collection of experiencings? Or......

And to be clear. I mean this as exploratory. I think your non-realism and other non-realisms (unles they are merely epistemological) come or entail a model of the universe or reality and that this is different from the realist one. You've been clear that there is no mind independent reality. So, what is that kind of universe like. I think we can all sketch the scientific realist model, with the Big Bang perhaps stuff before that in different models. A universe, a vast space with many things in it, existing for a long time before minds arose and so on. It's all there, now and was there but different in the past. The planet we just discovered last week in some solar system far away, well that was there for a long time before we noticed it. So there's this kind of stable space filled with stuff.

But what's your universe/reality like. I think it would be very different from that. So, what is your model, given your non-realism.