Realism is Not Tenable

[Atla]

I was hallucinating again yesterday that VA owes me 10 million. 10% of that is 1 million, well okay I'll settle for that, so be it.

Now pay, VA

I understand the rhetorical use of the term Hallucination. But once you get passed that moment, a better term should be used. Filters/Selection/Interpretation.

But then you get a real problem if you starting giving numbers. One is what you're pointing out. Another is it is as if one facet of the perceiving is hallucination. What's the other part, then?

It ends up sounding like a mix of naive realism (the good part of the perception is somehow direct) and indirect realism, and down to percentages.

Another problem or perhaps another way of saying the same problem is that hallucinations indicate that the perception is of something not there. Where is that there for an antirealist?

I think that an metaphysical antirealist needs to treat all perceptions as real, however some are individual reality, others are group or collective - and can be found again via empirical research by others.

If you say it isn't real, the perceptions of someone realists would say was hallucinating, this entails that one can check with the object. Or check that there was no object 'there'. Which is realist.

You could say that the person experiencing things that others cannot in the same situation is having mono-empirical moments rather than inter-empirical ones. That black boxes the whole 'real' determination. And there is absolutely no reason to label one person's experience unreal or hallucinatory. They may well have problems if they expect others to have the same empirical moments, and in what gets called the mentally ill, we can predict some of those problems, but once there is no mind independent reality, hallucination as a term is meaningless.

Empirically isolated people may turn out to be actually having perceptions that later many or all will have. This has happened.

These points are meant within a metaphysical antirealist stance.

Why are you invested in anti-realism btw? What's the point of it?

[Iwannaplato]

Why are you invested in anti-realism btw? What's the point of it?

It's interesting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For example a psychiatrist [who is antirealist philosophically] in his job will professionally tell his schizophrenic patient that he is suffering from hallucinations which is abnormal negative and thus need medical treatments.

However, if the psychiatrist change to a empirical realist's hat for relevant reason [say in debating with a p-realist], he will assert all our perceptions are merely hallucinations on a continuum

. On a continuum from what to what? They would all also be whatever is on the other end of the continuum.
Hallucination on this end<-------------------------------->accurate perception on the other end. If they are all hallucinations, then they are all accurate perceptions - to varying degrees

Yes, "in varying degrees" from 100/100 to 0.001/100 is critical.
For example, white [grey] can be 99.99% white + 0.01% black.
Note in reality, re the transition from autumn to winter, when it is 100% or 0.1% autumn and 0.01% winter or 100% winter. Refer to yin-yang principles.

What is most critical is the transparency of the contexts, terms and numbers used to enable an average rational person to make sense of it.

I did not state, they have limited that word to those situations.
We can use our intelligence to make good use of the point on hallucination for pragmatic purposes., e.g. in the psychiatric situation.

If we were to put all perceptions within a continuum of hallucinations,
then we can use it to counter the theists' claim that God exists.
In this case, we can rank [based on justified criteria by rational people] the perception [idea] that God exists as perceived and real as a 90/100 hallucination while ordinary perceptions that can be empirically justified such as those in science be rated at 5/100.
We can rate all other types of perceptions and hallucinations along the continuum.

So, a perception of God is 10% real.

Note Dawkins use of numbers;

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

In print, Dawkins self-identified as a "6", though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested "6.9" to be more accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_ ... robability

When Dawkins mentioned his rating is 6/7, did he mean he is a 14.3% theist or later a 1.43% theist?
Knowing Dawkins as who he is, would any rational person condemned Dawkins used of % as stupid?
Very likely irrational FDP will condemn him as idiotic in using numbers like that.
Atla will think Dawkins will be in 14.3% heaven and 85.7% hell.

The point is when a rational person interpret Dawkins' number in the contexts given, the rational person would understand what he meant by the above numbers.

If my numbers implied
"a perception of God is 10% real"
it is what is it within the contexts given.

but that has also take into account my claim;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

to be more serious, I would rate the 'perception' of God at 99.99/100 or 100/100 hallucination if certainty is acceptable.

[Atla]

Kindi gnat philosophers will try to put everything on one numerical continuum. That of course is ludicrous. Philosophy is multi-layered, and with it comes a multi-layered system of numerical continuums.

[Iwannaplato]

Kindi gnat philosophers will try to put everything on one numerical continuum. That of course is ludicrous. Philosophy is multi-layered, and with it comes a multi-layered system of numerical continuums.

Atal: that was 72.5/100. It needs polishing.

[Flannel Jesus]

Kindi gnat philosophers will try to put everything on one numerical continuum. That of course is ludicrous. Philosophy is multi-layered, and with it comes a multi-layered system of numerical continuums.

Atal: that was 72.5/100. It needs polishing.

Fun fact: each book ever written can be encoded in a single integer.

[FlashDangerpants]

Note Dawkins use of numbers;

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

In print, Dawkins self-identified as a "6", though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested "6.9" to be more accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_ ... robability

When Dawkins mentioned his rating is 6/7, did he mean he is a 14.3% theist or later a 1.43% theist?
Knowing Dawkins as who he is, would any rational person condemned Dawkins used of % as stupid?
Very likely irrational FDP will condemn him as idiotic in using numbers like that.
Atla will think Dawkins will be in 14.3% heaven and 85.7% hell.

The point is when a rational person interpret Dawkins' number in the contexts given, the rational person would understand what he meant by the above numbers.

If my numbers implied
"a perception of God is 10% real"
it is what is it within the contexts given.

but that has also take into account my claim;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

to be more serious, I would rate the 'perception' of God at 99.99/100 or 100/100 hallucination if certainty is acceptable.

If you ask a 7 year old how much he likes chocolate he will hold his hands far apart and say "this much". That's how meaningful all your numbers are.

[Atla]

Atla will think Dawkins will be in 14.3% heaven and 85.7% hell.

Yes obviously they cut off one of his legs and send it to Heaven. That is totally what I would think, you know me well.

[Atla]

Should we tell VA at some point that only kids try to use absolute values in such comparisons anyway? Comparisons have to be relative in addition to being contextual, we have to calculate the relative likelihood of claims. Say claim A is 10 times more likely to be true than claim B, within context X. Absolute values are unknowable and incalculable for humans.

[Iwannaplato]

Kindi gnat philosophers will try to put everything on one numerical continuum. That of course is ludicrous. Philosophy is multi-layered, and with it comes a multi-layered system of numerical continuums.

Atal: that was 72.5/100. It needs polishing.

Fun fact: each book ever written can be encoded in a single integer.

There's also a way to evaluate a stage of a person's life. For example, according to the puberty FSK, I experienced 4.23/10 between the ages of 12 and 17. This includes social relations, physiological changes, increase in maturity (if any) and body hair sub-evaluations.

[Flannel Jesus]

Atal: that was 72.5/100. It needs polishing.

Fun fact: each book ever written can be encoded in a single integer.

There's also a way to evaluate a stage of a person's life. For example, according to the puberty FSK, I experienced 4.23/10 between the ages of 12 and 17. This includes social relations, physiological changes, increase in maturity (if any) and body hair sub-evaluations.

But how did you score on the O'Doyell/Bueller scale? I've heard that metric counts for more than half of your future predictive success.

[Iwannaplato]

But how did you score on the O'Doyell/Bueller scale? I've heard that metric counts for more than half of your future predictive success.

Sadly, I didn't even qualify for evaluation. They only evaluated the cool kids. I had a bus pass and thick glasses.

[Flannel Jesus]

But how did you score on the O'Doyell/Bueller scale? I've heard that metric counts for more than half of your future predictive success.

Sadly, I didn't even qualify for evaluation. They only evaluated the cool kids. I had a bus pass and thick glasses.

Shit.

You could still have maybe qualified for the revised O'Doyell/Bueller-Tieder scale, which takes into account glass thickness, thigh thickness, and mental thickness. Idk if they were offering that back then though.