Philosophy Now Forum

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 10:43 pm ...but could each take a picture of the tree with their iPhones for later viewing, and all of the pictures would be of the exact same tree.



How in the world would that be possible if there is no fixed and stable outer world?
_______

With reference to perceiving and cognition of tree-T1 at t1 and then perceiving the supposedly 'same' tree-T2 at t2.
Yes, within the common and conventional sense, the tree-T1 at t1 is the same tree at t2.

But in another perspective with deeper and more serious reflection, the tree-T1 at t1 is NEVER exactly the same tree at t2.

The only constant is 'change', nothing is absolutely permanent.
Note Heraclitus,

• “No man ever steps in the same river twice.
  For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
  Heraclitus.

The physical quantity and volume of materials comprising tree-T1 at t1 would have changed, to different quantities and volume at t2.
The leaves of the tree drop, as such quantity of leaves would have changed by t2 [in seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. ]
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
Realistically we cannot insist they are the "SAME' tree when we take the above variations into account.

Why we say it is the same tree within seconds, minutes, days, and years is a matter of convenience which must be qualified as within the common and conventional sense.

........
The reality is there is no absolute SAME tree out there!
'Sameness' comes in degrees in relation to perspective.

What is the 'same' tree is only based on the persistent image and memory in the human mind which is incapable to grasping the whole real tree but merely a concept and crude image of it.

As I had stated, what is 'same' is only valid within the common and conventional senses which do not "represent" reality [as it is] accurately, thus the individual has been duped by nature to believe it is the 'same' tree.
This is deception is crucial to facilitate basic survival but it cannot be absolute for all levels of survival.

The idea of absolute sameness within indirect realism as subset of scientific realism and philosophical realism is a farce.
This based on an emotional and psychological pleading driven by an evolutionary default rather than basing on critical thinking and rationality.
....................

In Relation of Indirect Realism
However, the above is not the main issue with Indirect Realism.
Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism claims there a noumenal tree that exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
The idea of a noumenal tree as real is due to reification of an illusion as real.
To insist such an illusion is real is delusional.

Besides the above, with Indirect Realism there is also the problem of the unresolvable Veil of Perception and the REALITY-GAP.

............
Question:
Is a real tree perceived in reality exactly same at all times?

Discuss??
View??

1. Point is what is same inferred from and image & memory in the mind cannot be the same in reality [FSERC-ed].

2. The very real tree comprised of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc..
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.

3. However to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality, it would be a liability if it would try to be precise.
As such, the the whole tree-T1 at t1 [image in memory] would be the SAME as tree-T2 at t2
[present image ] are presented as the same images in the brain/mind.

4. But it it obvious in reality, the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2 in terms of the quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter and volume of other materials.

How could any person who thinks critically and is rational cannot grasp the above 1-4.

It make good sense for nature to deceive the observer,
so to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality.
It would be a liability if it would try to be precise.
Thus it is critical for humans at the common sense level to perceive [as images in the brain] the tree as the 'same' all the time [until it cut off, strike by lightning or dies.]

Meantime the real tree is NEVER the same since it changes every nano-second with time.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 10:43 pm ...but could each take a picture of the tree with their iPhones for later viewing, and all of the pictures would be of the exact same tree.



How in the world would that be possible if there is no fixed and stable outer world?
_______

With reference to perceiving and cognition of tree-T1 at t1 and then perceiving the supposedly 'same' tree-T2 at t2.
Yes, within the common and conventional sense, the tree-T1 at t1 is the same tree at t2.

But in another perspective with deeper and more serious reflection, the tree-T1 at t1 is NEVER exactly the same tree at t2.

The only constant is 'change', nothing is absolutely permanent.
Note Heraclitus,

• “No man ever steps in the same river twice.
  For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
  Heraclitus.

The physical quantity and volume of materials comprising tree-T1 at t1 would have changed, to different quantities and volume at t2.
The leaves of the tree drop, as such quantity of leaves would have changed by t2 [in seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. ]
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
Realistically we cannot insist they are the "SAME' tree when we take the above variations into account.

Why we say it is the same tree within seconds, minutes, days, and years is a matter of convenience which must be qualified as within the common and conventional sense.

........
The reality is there is no absolute SAME tree out there!
'Sameness' comes in degrees in relation to perspective.

So what?

you speak and write as though you have just come-to-know this, or as though you expect others here were not yet aware of this.

The so-called 'same tree' is not even 'the same' as when the eyes on body has 'registered' 'the tree', and, from 'the time' of 'recognition', by the eyes, to 'the time' 'the tree' is recognized, or comprehended, by 'the brain' and transferred into 'thought' the 'same tree' as 'changed' even further again.

But, again, so what?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am What is the 'same' tree is only based on the persistent image and memory in the human mind

Not that you "veritas aequitas" would ever respond, there is no such thing as a 'human mind'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am which is incapable to grasping the whole real tree but merely a concept and crude image of it.

Again, not that you would ever answer, 'But why what is 'grasped' within that body is merely just a crude image of 'it'?

And, following on from 'your logic' here, how would you ever even 'know' what the True tree really is nor 'know' what the True image of 'the tree' really is. So, how would you 'know' that you have only but a merely crude image of it'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am As I had stated, what is 'same' is only valid within the common and conventional senses which do not "represent" reality [as it is] accurately, thus the individual has been duped by nature to believe it is the 'same' tree.

But, only if an individual was a complete imbecile to imagine or use the word 'same' as though what the individual is reporting is the actual 'same' representation of what 'was' being perceived.

Obviously, what is perceived, at the time of being perceived, has, already, changed, and thus is already 'different' and not 'the same'.

Were you under some sort of delusion that anyone could actually report after perception, let alone at perception, what 'the exact same thing' is at 'now', that had already changed, by 'then'?

None of you human beings, literally, 'see' things how 'they are'. you all 'see' things 'after' they have happened and occurred.

Also, 'Nature', Itself, never ever so-called 'dupes' absolutely any one. Only you human beings 'dupe', fool, and deceive, "yourselves". And, by your very own made up assumptions and beliefs, 'before' you have obtained actual clarity/clarification first.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am This is deception is crucial to facilitate basic survival but it cannot be absolute for all levels of survival.

LOL

So, this one here, 'now', is trying to 'justify' its own deception is/was caused by 'Nature', Itself. And, that 'Nature' did/does this because it was/is 'crucial' for "veritas aequita's" to 'facilitate its own basic survival'.

Which, is again, another prime example of an adult human being tricking, fooling, and deceiving "its" own 'self', with and from its own pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am The idea of absolute sameness within indirect realism as subset of scientific realism and philosophical realism is a farce.

This is just another prime example of one picking and choosing words, and using them in a way, which, it hopes, appears as though it knows what it is talking about.

And, the most simplest of clarifying questions would prove, irrefutably, that this one has no clue nor idea at all here.

LOL This one 'introduces' the 'new' term or phrase 'absolute sameness', as though it could even be an actual possibility to begin with, to 'try to' fight and argue against what are other Truly impossible things anyway.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am This based on an emotional and psychological pleading driven by an evolutionary default rather than basing on critical thinking and rationality.

Some would point out 'projection' here.

....................

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am In Relation of Indirect Realism
However, the above is not the main issue with Indirect Realism.
Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism claims there a noumenal tree that exists regardless of whether there are human or not.

Of which you keep saying and claiming that there are no things, when there are none of you human beings.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am The idea of a noumenal tree as real is due to reification of an illusion as real.
To insist such an illusion is real is delusional.

'To go' where 'you go' here "veritas aequitas" is what some refer to and call 'real delusional'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am Besides the above, with Indirect Realism there is also the problem of the unresolvable Veil of Perception and the REALITY-GAP.

............
Question:
Is a real tree perceived in reality exactly same at all times?

What even is a 'real tree', exactly, to you, "veritas aequitas"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:45 am Discuss??
View??

The word 'Reality', when it is to be defined in 'a way' that 'fits in', perfectly, with all other words and definitions, to form and illustrate One absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct 'picture', or GUT, of 'Everything', then 'Reality' is not even about what you human beings 'see' or 'have seen' as 'really happening'.

What is/was 'really happening', in the days when this was/is being written, is 'really happening', but 'that' is certainly NOT 'Reality', Itself.

Again, as can be, will be, and does get proved True.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am 1. Point is what is same inferred from and image & memory in the mind cannot be the same in reality [FSERC-ed].

From what I have observed no one here has even used the word 'same', as you obviously do here "veritas aequitas".

Which, obviously, does not mean that no one else has not. But, if anyone has, then show where, when, and why.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am 2. The very real tree comprised of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc..
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.

Again, obviously. And, so what?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am 3. However to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality, it would be a liability if it would try to be precise.

So, if 'we' follow 'your logic' here, then because 'you' are trying to convey 'precise reality', to 'us', then this means that 'you' are being a 'liability' to "your" own 'self' here, right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am As such, the the whole tree-T1 at t1 [image in memory] would be the SAME as tree-T2 at t2
[present image ] are presented as the same images in the brain/mind.

Only if one was very, very confused.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am 4. But it it obvious in reality, the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2 in terms of the quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter and volume of other materials.

Yet, you "veritas aequitas", still, call 'it' 'a tree', correct?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am How could any person who thinks critically and is rational cannot grasp the above 1-4.

How come 'you' are, still, so, so far behind from what the actual Truth is, here?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:47 am It make good sense for nature to deceive the observer,
so to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality.
It would be a liability if it would try to be precise.

What is the second 'it' word here referring to, exactly?

And, why would it, supposedly, be a 'liability' to just 'try to be precise'?

Obviously, if this were true, then because you are consistently 'trying to be precise', then you doing this would make you are a liability to you, and to "yourself".

Also, what do you think the 'aim of evolution', or the 'goal' of evolving, would be?

Would it be to become 'more precise' or to become 'less precise'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am Thus it is critical for humans at the common sense level to perceive [as images in the brain] the tree as the 'same' all the time [until it cut off, strike by lightning or dies.]

But, not while it is growing and changing, right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:46 am Meantime the real tree is NEVER the same since it changes every nano-second with time.

But, nothing changes 'with time', in the sense that 'time' is some actual thing, which creates or causes 'change'.

The word 'time' was created, and evolved into being, to denote the measuring of 'the duration' between events.