Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are mixing human with mind. Of course, reality, the object of experience and causation by the mind, cannot exist without the mind. But human is not the mind. We know from the fossil record that humans did not exist in the long past.

This is off topic. The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].

In your case, 'mind' is synonymous with 'God'.
I have proven,

It is Impossible for God ['Mind'] to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

We know from the fossil record that humans did not exist in the long past.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
The moon exists regardless there are humans
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].
My contention is, e.g. there is no pre-existing moon out there awaiting humans to perceive it.
The 'real moon' spontaneously emerged and is realized spontaneously and THEN is is subsequently [in time] perceived, known, beliefs and described.

There is no really real pre-existing things.
At the basic level, what is empirically verified and justified things emerged from a soup of particles which is more real than solid physical things perceived.
What is more real with an apple you see on the table is the denser cluster of particles the apple is comprised of from the totality "soup of particles" like below;



Even the above is not any ultimate reality but rather it is still an emerged and realized finer aspects of reality.

There is no ultimate mind-independent reality; all of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I found the reference. CPR 3:34:60

In the transcendental exploration of cognitive faculties, realism surfaces as an evolutionary default ingrained in the human mind.
The transcendental aesthetic unfolds the narrative of an intricate cognitive architecture, wherein the synthesis of understanding and sensibility converges towards realism—a proclivity woven into the very fabric of our evolutionary history.
Categories of understanding, shaped by survival imperatives, render experience intelligible with a predilection for veridical representation.
The transcendental ballet between the a priori and empirical not only reveals the evolutionary footprints but also allows for nuanced variations within the cognitive landscape.
Realism emerges as the prima ballerina in this symphony of cognitive evolution.

I agree with the above which is limited to certain aspect of Kant's CPR.

It that your original or where is the reference for it?
I would like to read more of it.

[Iwannaplato]

My point is in the ultimate sense, the idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality is an evolutionary default of deception to facilitate basic survival, thus it is generating illusions and to insist is delusional.

How could a false belief enhance survival, given that surviving requires effective models that lead to actions?
Why would a false belief work better than a true belief?

There are much info out there that support the above theory of deception that facilitated survival.
Here is one,

Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what’s really there
Donald Hoffman
https://youtu.be/1SL-j1XoDms?t=501
His thesis is;

• 8:20: The theorem.
  An organism that sees reality-as-it-is is never more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality and is just tuned to the fitness payoffs.
  Translated, that means if you see the truth, you'll go extinct.

The above implies, false belief enhance survival and believing what is really true lead to extinction.

One good example is the believe in an illusory God [deities, myths, etc.] that have given the majority the psychological stability to survive.

Explain in the specific case, why believing in a the realism false belief is criticially necessary to survival, as you say.

Notice that in the video he is talking about seeing (perceiving). Why would would it be critically necessary to think there is a mind-independent reality? Think.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is very tedious for me to read up and come up with examples.
ChatGpt [with reservation] is very helpful in giving a general view instead of a specific example;

Donald Hoffman's perspective, as outlined in his book "The Case Against Reality," posits that evolution may have shaped human perceptions in ways that do not necessarily represent objective reality.
Instead, he argues that our perceptions are tuned to fitness payoffs that enhance survival and reproduction. Here are a few examples based on Hoffman's ideas:

Visual Perception:
Hoffman suggests that our visual system may not provide an accurate representation of the true nature of objects. For example, the perception of solid objects and their shapes might be a constructed illusion that aids in navigating the environment efficiently. The classic example of the "light above and shadow below" creating a convex shape is one such illusion that might have evolutionary benefits in locating food sources.

Color Perception:
Our perception of color may also be a constructed representation rather than an accurate reflection of the true colors of objects. Evolution might have favored color coding that enhances the recognition of important cues, such as ripe fruits or potential mates, even if the colors we perceive are not an accurate reflection of the objective reality.

Time Perception:
Hoffman proposes that our perception of time might be a simplified construct that helps us make quick decisions for survival. For instance, our ability to perceive a flowing stream as a continuous entity rather than a sequence of discrete events could be evolutionarily advantageous for avoiding potential threats or capturing prey.

Social Perception:
Evolutionary pressures on social interactions might lead to deceptive perceptions of others' intentions. For example, perceiving someone as more trustworthy or attractive than they objectively are could influence social bonding and cooperation, enhancing overall group fitness.

Spatial Perception:
Our spatial perceptions, such as the perception of distance and size, might be biased to serve functional purposes rather than accurately representing objective reality. This could be crucial in tasks such as hunting or avoiding predators.

Sensory Biases:
Evolution might introduce biases in our sensory systems that prioritize certain types of information over others. For example, heightened sensitivity to movement or contrasting patterns may enhance our ability to detect potential threats or opportunities in the environment.

Hoffman's argument challenges the common assumption that our perceptions provide a faithful representation of the world.
Instead, he suggests that evolution may favor perceptions that prioritize fitness payoffs over accuracy in depicting the true nature of reality.
It's important to note that this perspective is part of a broader ongoing discussion in philosophy and cognitive science.

[bahman]

You are mixing human with mind. Of course, reality, the object of experience and causation by the mind, cannot exist without the mind. But human is not the mind. We know from the fossil record that humans did not exist in the long past.

This is off topic. The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].

In your case, 'mind' is synonymous with 'God'.
I have proven,

It is Impossible for God ['Mind'] to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

We know from the fossil record that humans did not exist in the long past.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
The moon exists regardless there are humans
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].
My contention is, e.g. there is no pre-existing moon out there awaiting humans to perceive it.
The 'real moon' spontaneously emerged and is realized spontaneously and THEN is is subsequently [in time] perceived, known, beliefs and described.

There is no really real pre-existing things.
At the basic level, what is empirically verified and justified things emerged from a soup of particles which is more real than solid physical things perceived.
What is more real with an apple you see on the table is the denser cluster of particles the apple is comprised of from the totality "soup of particles" like below;



Even the above is not any ultimate reality but rather it is still an emerged and realized finer aspects of reality.

There is no ultimate mind-independent reality; all of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

No, the mind is not God.

[Iwannaplato]

It is very tedious for me to read up and come up with examples.
ChatGpt [with reservation] is very helpful in giving a general view instead of a specific example;

I clipped away the rest since it is not relevant.

Again. That's about perception. I am talking about the belief that there is an independent reality.

Note what I wrote:

Explain in the specific case, why believing in a the realism false belief is criticially necessary to survival, as you say.

Notice that in the video he is talking about seeing (perceiving). Why would would it be critically necessary to think there is a mind-independent reality? Think.

Your response: it is tedious for me to read up and come up with examples.

I was asked for an explanation in the specific case. Singular.
And then I specifically point out that Hoffman was talking about perceptions.
But you are claiming that an idea is an evolutionary default. The idea of a mind-independent reality.
Why is that idea both critically necessary for survival and false.
Why does an organism HAVE TO HAVE that idea to survive. Do any organisms other than humans have this idea? How did they manage to survive if they didn't have that idea?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is very tedious for me to read up and come up with examples.
ChatGpt [with reservation] is very helpful in giving a general view instead of a specific example;

I clipped away the rest since it is not relevant.

Again. That's about perception. I am talking about the belief that there is an independent reality.

Note what I wrote:

Explain in the specific case, why believing in a the realism false belief is criticially necessary to survival, as you say.

Notice that in the video he is talking about seeing (perceiving). Why would would it be critically necessary to think there is a mind-independent reality? Think.

Your response: it is tedious for me to read up and come up with examples.

I was asked for an explanation in the specific case. Singular.
And then I specifically point out that Hoffman was talking about perceptions.
But you are claiming that an idea is an evolutionary default. The idea of a mind-independent reality.
Why is that idea both critically necessary for survival and false.
Why does an organism HAVE TO HAVE that idea to survive. Do any organisms other than humans have this idea? How did they manage to survive if they didn't have that idea?

There is a lot of mixed up in the above.
Organism Do NOT HAVE TO HAVE that IDEA [the ideology] to survive.

I had stated there is an evolutionary default state of external_ness by organisms [including humans] arising from their perceptions, responsiveness or receptiveness to stimuli to facilitate survival.
So, organisms [including humans] just experience, perceive with responsiveness or receptiveness to stimuli to facilitate survival since 3.5 billion years ago.
Thus, organisms [including humans] do not necessary have to HAVE that IDEA [the ideology] to survive.

Humans had evolved with self-awareness, capacity for language and complex beliefs where humans are able to recognize the concept of externalness, i.e. there are things that are external to them that facilitate their survival.
This CONCEPT of externalness [mind-independence] is what the scientific FSK establish as a principle; it is also understood within common and conventional sense.
This is mind-independence in the relative sense.

The problem and issue arose within the philosophical community only when a group of people [philosophical realists] adopted the CONCEPT of externalness as an IDEA of externalness as absolutely mind-independent without compromise.
Note the conversion of CONCEPT of externalness to an IDEA of externalness and therefrom adopted as an IDEOLOGY which is absolute and without compromise.
Philosophical realists are grounding their belief of an absolutely mind-independent reality based on an illusion [the idea], i.e. reifying the concept of externalnass as a real.
The extreme of this ideology is the belief that the moon exists regardless of there are humans or not, and where opponents to such an ideology are killed in the case of theists.

The point "Why is that IDEA both critically necessary for survival and false" arose only because philosophical realists cling that relative state as an absolute IDEA which is most true and therefrom as an IDEOLOGY. Thus, it is only 'false' in contrast to the philosophical realists claim there is an absolutely mind-independent reality.

When philosophical realists are countered and highlighted that their belief [of an absolutely mind-independent reality] is grounded on an illusion, they will insist
-"for 'what is described', there must be 'the-pre_existing-described' that is absolute independent of the human conditions,"
-"the moon exists regardless of there are humans or not"
-"dinosaurs existed and died before there were humans"
- and so on ..

The OP enlightens that there are no pre-existing absolute mind-independent reality.
What-is emerged and is realized spontaneously in entanglement with the human conditions and thereafter subsequently [in time] is perceived, known, believed and described.

To philosophical realists, this claim is very counter-intuitive and absurd.
But that [emergence, realization then perceived and described] is what is really going on with reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are mixing human with mind. Of course, reality, the object of experience and causation by the mind, cannot exist without the mind. But human is not the mind. We know from the fossil record that humans did not exist in the long past.

This is off topic. The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].

In your case, 'mind' is synonymous with 'God'.
I have proven,

It is Impossible for God ['Mind'] to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

We know from the fossil record that humans did not exist in the long past.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
The moon exists regardless there are humans
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].
My contention is, e.g. there is no pre-existing moon out there awaiting humans to perceive it.
The 'real moon' spontaneously emerged and is realized spontaneously and THEN is is subsequently [in time] perceived, known, beliefs and described.

There is no really real pre-existing things.
At the basic level, what is empirically verified and justified things emerged from a soup of particles which is more real than solid physical things perceived.
What is more real with an apple you see on the table is the denser cluster of particles the apple is comprised of from the totality "soup of particles" like below;



Even the above is not any ultimate reality but rather it is still an emerged and realized finer aspects of reality.

There is no ultimate mind-independent reality; all of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

No, the mind is not God.

If not God, your non-empirical mind is merely an illusion.

What is general understood as mind [empirical] is this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

Prove your "mind" exists as real.

We have gone through this before.
I suggest you open a thread [so you can refer to whenever the issue arises] to present your proof so we don't have to go through the grind again.
If there is already an existing thread, where?

[bahman]

This is off topic. The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].

In your case, 'mind' is synonymous with 'God'.
I have proven,

It is Impossible for God ['Mind'] to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229



The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
The moon exists regardless there are humans
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

The OP is about real things that can be verified and justified empirically as real by Science [the most credible and objective model].
My contention is, e.g. there is no pre-existing moon out there awaiting humans to perceive it.
The 'real moon' spontaneously emerged and is realized spontaneously and THEN is is subsequently [in time] perceived, known, beliefs and described.

There is no really real pre-existing things.
At the basic level, what is empirically verified and justified things emerged from a soup of particles which is more real than solid physical things perceived.
What is more real with an apple you see on the table is the denser cluster of particles the apple is comprised of from the totality "soup of particles" like below;



Even the above is not any ultimate reality but rather it is still an emerged and realized finer aspects of reality.

There is no ultimate mind-independent reality; all of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

No, the mind is not God.

If not God, your non-empirical mind is merely an illusion.

What is general understood as mind [empirical] is this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

Prove your "mind" exists as real.

We have gone through this before.
I suggest you open a thread [so you can refer to whenever the issue arises] to present your proof so we don't have to go through the grind again.
If there is already an existing thread, where?

I have a recent thread on this here.

[Iwannaplato]

There is a lot of mixed up in the above.
Organism Do NOT HAVE TO HAVE that IDEA [the ideology] to survive.

Great, then it is precisely NOT necessary for survival, which contradicts what you have been saying.

I had stated there is an evolutionary default state of external_ness by organisms [including humans] arising from their perceptions, responsiveness or receptiveness to stimuli to facilitate survival.

I truly doubt that animals think 'externalness', but regardless that is not realism. Antirealists can happily think in terms of externalness - I guarantee that you do - with committing themselves either way about mind independent reality.

So, organisms [including humans] just experience, perceive with responsiveness or receptiveness to stimuli to facilitate survival since 3.5 billion years ago.
Thus, organisms [including humans] do not necessary have to HAVE that IDEA [the ideology] to survive.

So, it was incorrect when you said that. Realism, in terms of believing there is a mind-independent reality IS NOT AN EVOLUTIONARY DEFAULT necessary for survival. Period.

Humans had evolved with self-awareness, capacity for language and complex beliefs where humans are able to recognize the concept of externalness, i.e. there are things that are external to them that facilitate their survival.
This CONCEPT of externalness [mind-independence] is what the scientific FSK establish as a principle; it is also understood within common and conventional sense.
This is mind-independence in the relative sense.

And so humans did not need to believe in what you think the realists are wrong about. Those realists have a believe that has never been necessary for survival.

In order to make them sound primitive you have called their position an evolutionary default necessary for survival. When the problems of those 2 opposed characteristics you claim it has - it is a false belief BUT utterly necessary for survival - you have repeated the claim.

The problem and issue arose within the philosophical community

who have a specific ontological belief that animals and most humans do not think their way to having.

The point "Why is that IDEA both critically necessary for survival and false" arose only because philosophical realists cling that relative state as an absolute IDEA which is most true and therefrom as an IDEOLOGY. Thus, it is only 'false' in contrast to the philosophical realists claim there is an absolutely mind-independent reality.

You are not admitting that you have called a belief necessary for survival and at the same time false, when it was not necessary for survival, since the vast majority of humans and certainly all animals have not mulled their way, like certain philosophers, to the idea that external reality is completely mind independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a lot of mixed up in the above.
Organism Do NOT HAVE TO HAVE that IDEA [the ideology] to survive.

Great, then it is precisely NOT necessary for survival, which contradicts what you have been saying.

This is really a messed up from you.

I have stated ALL organisms up to humans has a sense [evolutionary instinct] of 'externalness' to facilitate survival but it is only humans who adopt that sense of 'externalness' as an ideology of externalness, as a "ism" i.e. philosophical_realism.

I had stated there is an evolutionary default state of external_ness by organisms [including humans] arising from their perceptions, responsiveness or receptiveness to stimuli to facilitate survival.

I truly doubt that animals think 'externalness', but regardless that is not realism. Antirealists can happily think in terms of externalness - I guarantee that you do - with committing themselves either way about mind independent reality.

Strawman.
Where did I use the term "think".

That evolutionary default is something like an instinct.

I don't deny I have that inherent instinct of externalness or a sense of externalness in me like all humans BUT I don't adopt it like an uncomprisable ideological "ism" like philosophical realists do.

So, organisms [including humans] just experience, perceive with responsiveness or receptiveness to stimuli to facilitate survival since 3.5 billion years ago.
Thus, organisms [including humans] do not necessary have to HAVE that IDEA [the ideology] to survive.

So, it was incorrect when you said that. Realism, in terms of believing there is a mind-independent reality IS NOT AN EVOLUTIONARY DEFAULT necessary for survival. Period.

What a mess up. Something is wrong with your thinking in this case.

Yes, "organisms [including humans] do not necessary have to HAVE that IDEA [the ideology] to survive" but what they have is not IDEA [thought] but an instinct of externalness.
Do you know how to differentiate between what is instinctual and having an IDEA, belief and thought?

Humans had evolved with self-awareness, capacity for language and complex beliefs where humans are able to recognize the concept of externalness, i.e. there are things that are external to them that facilitate their survival.
This CONCEPT of externalness [mind-independence] is what the scientific FSK establish as a principle; it is also understood within common and conventional sense.
This is mind-independence in the relative sense.

And so humans did not need to believe in what you think the realists are wrong about. Those realists have a believe that has never been necessary for survival.

In order to make them sound primitive you have called their position an evolutionary default necessary for survival. When the problems of those 2 opposed characteristics you claim it has - it is a false belief BUT utterly necessary for survival - you have repeated the claim.

Yes, realists are primitive in the sense they intellectualize and bastardized primal instincts as an ideology.
If realists are matured, they will merely recognize an instinct as an evolutionary default and not adopt is as an ideology.

The problem and issue arose within the philosophical community

who have a specific ontological belief that animals and most humans do not think their way to having.

Yes, thinking in a very primitive and immature manner.

The point "Why is that IDEA both critically necessary for survival and false" arose only because philosophical realists cling that relative state as an absolute IDEA which is most true and therefrom as an IDEOLOGY. Thus, it is only 'false' in contrast to the philosophical realists claim there is an absolutely mind-independent reality.

You are not admitting that you have called a belief necessary for survival and at the same time false, when it was not necessary for survival, since the vast majority of humans and certainly all animals have not mulled their way, like certain philosophers, to the idea that external reality is completely mind independent.

As I had explained above you are conflating the evolutionary default as instinct with IDEA [deliberated thinking].
ALL living things [including humans] are "programmed" with the adapted instinct or sense of externalness [in varying degrees] BUT is it only humans who adopt it as an "ism" i.e. the ideology of philosophical_realism as the philosophical realists do.

Analogy:
All complex-animals [including humans] are programmed with the instinct for pattern-recognition to facilitate survival.
However, it is only humans who adopted it to the extreme of the pattern within reality to a a God i.e. the "ism" and ideology of 'theism' and in its extreme those who oppose their beliefs are killed.

Pattern recognition influences religious belief, according to new study
Christians and Muslims that pick out unconscious patterns are more likely to believe in a god.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/pattern-recognition-god/

This is analogous to philosophical realists adopting the instinct of externalness as an ideological "ism" of philosophical_realism.

Get it?

[Iwannaplato]

This is really a messed up from you.

I have stated ALL organisms up to humans has a sense [evolutionary instinct] of 'externalness' to facilitate survival but it is only humans who adopt that sense of 'externalness' as an ideology of externalness, as a "ism" i.e. philosophical_realism.

No, that is not what you said.

My point is in the ultimate sense, the idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality is an evolutionary default of deception to facilitate basic survival, thus it is generating illusions and to insist is delusional.

There it is. When I point out this is not true and ask for evidence, post after post you shift your terms until now it is externalness. But that is not what you said and not what I responded to.