Do we create reality with our mind?

[Iwannaplato]

I think there is a misconception about anti-realism, which is that it means that our minds fabricate a reality out of nothing.

There are a variety of antirealisms, here I am talking about VA's AND the antirealism explored in the OP. If there is no thing in itself to trigger our fabrication, they any object could be found. The fact that the same or a very similar object is found or the same category of object is found hints that there is some kind of residue that triggers certain associations/patterns in the observer. Otherwise it would be just as likely that we create something else.

There are antirealisms that are agnostic about just what is 'out there'. But that's not VA. He's been clearly that there is nothing there. Also if we create reality, rather than interpret through filters, etc, in an indirect realism, then why would there be any constraints that lead to consistency?

That's not the case.

We are getting inputs to our senses and we process those to create a concept of what we believe exists.

To me it sounds like you are talking realism.

And note: I am not dismissing the creating reality idea, in the moment, nor am I saying that VA is wrong about their being no things-in-themselves that are mind-independent, but an explanation for the consistency of responses is needed and I think that's where things get interesting.

And while I haven't done the box experiment, we live informal versions all the time. It's very rare someone walks into what I experienced as a bathroom and they tell me they got some milk from the fridge in there.

So, how does this consistency get made/upheld/maintained between minds, even when those people are experiencing, in different moments, something they are not expecting, and in relation to what other, stranger minds (minds of people we don't know before that) experience.

Again, I think there are answers, even good ones I consider possibly the case, but to me your answer is indirect realism. Which would put you in Atla's camp and not in VA's.

What does the strong metaphysical antirealist say to justify these miracles?

[phyllo]

There are a variety of antirealisms, here I am talking about VA's AND the antirealism explored in the OP. If there is no thing in itself to trigger our fabrication, they any object could be found. The fact that the same or a very similar object is found or the same category of object is found hints that there is some kind of residue that triggers certain associations/patterns in the observer. Otherwise it would be just as likely that we create something else.

There are antirealisms that are agnostic about just what is 'out there'. But that's not VA. He's been clearly that there is nothing there. Also if we create reality, rather than interpret through filters, etc, in an indirect realism, then why would there be any constraints that lead to consistency?

I watched the video and she referred to some of the things that I'm posting.

Think 'Matrix'. There are 'machines' out there producing inputs to minds/brains and those minds believe that a particular reality exists. The outside observer, outside the Matrix, has other inputs and believes that a different reality exists.

The brain in a vat doesn't think it is a brain in a vat.

Again, I think there are answers, even good ones I consider possibly the case, but to me your answer is indirect realism.

I seems to me that indirect realism says that the objects you observe are really there as objects but perhaps somewhat distorted by 'perception'. So a color blind person sees a flower ... the flower exists but he is possibly mistaken about the color.

Anti-realism is saying that the image of the flower maybe is not coming from a flower.

The typical example from science is subatomic particles, electrons. We see the effects of electricity but we have no idea what an electron looks like or if an electron exists. The concept of electron with certain properties is created. As long as what we observe in experiments aligns with the concept, the electron can be real or not real.

[Iwannaplato]

Anti-realism is saying that the image of the flower maybe is not coming from a flower.

And VA is saying there is nothing that it is coming from, period. And in the text in the OP, which is the woman from the video, she keeps talking about creating reality. Do we create reality? and she says we can't rule it out. If we can't rule it out, it seems to me we need to explain why we have such consistency between minds.

I am reacting to her phrase creating reality which she says can't be ruled out, in the context of VA's position which is that it a reality we didn't create doesn't exist.

The typical example from science is subatomic particles, electrons. We see the effects of electricity but we have no idea what an electron looks like or if an electron exists.

Which is different from saying we create the electron and that there is nothing out there. That's VA and that's creating reality.

The concept of electron with certain properties is created. As long as what we observe in experiments aligns with the concept, the electron can be real or not real.

Or as Von Frassen would say, a leading anti-realist, the electron is a useful fiction and he's agnostic about whether there is something there and skeptical we can know anything about it. This is different from what I'll call the strong metaphysical antirealism of VA and what the woman in the OP thinks we cannot rule out. This would mean we couldn't rule it out despite what the box test would show. So, why wouldn't that rule it out?

And, again, I think there are answers to this, and there may be answers I haven't thought of, but the one I can think of is fairly radical and I would guess that any others would have to be also. What would lead to all those minds having consistent reactions is I think interesting. She's saying we cannot rule out that there is not even some kind of continuous residue in that box. There is nothing triggering the experiences the humans have in common. But for some reason they, and we in everyday life, tend to find the same objects in the same places that strangers find in them. There isn't the randomness you'd expect.

And even if you prime people, like give them hints about what you put in the box, they'll still, when alone in the room, find the same thing as others. Something seems to trigger the same response even if there is no thing in itself - so something would have to account for that AND this something, this explanation has to be one that cannot be ruled out.

[Skepdick]

And VA is saying there is nothing that it is coming from, period.

No he isn't. He's just doing the good ol' Newton. Hypotheses non fingo!

He is coming from any one of the philosophical positions which recognize that realism begs the question.

Soon as we admit realists their conclusion it becomes a rubber stamp for quality; and a normative beating stick. Want to dismiss an idea? No problem! Just declare it "not real"!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another example

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Jim Al-Khalili imo is a 40% realist and 60% antirealist. The % is not so important, what is important is physicists are changing their beliefs and acknowledging the truth of antirealism [Kantian].

I have a great respect for Professor Jim Al-Khalili, so could I please ask you to stop misrepresenting him already? You asshole.

Of course you wouldn't quote the 55:15-56:00 part from the same video (and of course the entire video went over your head):

While it's true that Einstein's dream of finding a reasonable commonsense explanation was shattered for good, my own personal view is that this doesn't necessarily banish physical reality. Like Einstein, I still believe there might be a more palpable explanation underlying the weird results of quantum mechanics. But one thing is clear. Whether there are physical spooky connections, whether there are parallel universes, whether we bring reality into existence by looking.. whatever the truth is, the weirdness of the quantum world won't go away, it will rear its ugly head somewhere.

You stil have no idea what QM interpretations even are. Al-Khalili's favourite interpretation is the Pilot Wave by the way. He's openly a realist like Einstein.

And EVEN the very anti-realist interpretations are arguably not Kantian anti-realisms. These are arguably two different kinds of anti-realisms that aren't compatible.

You did not read my post properly?

I stated;
"Jim Al-Khalili imo is a 40% realist and 60% antirealist.
The % is not so important, what is important is physicists are changing their beliefs and acknowledging [allowing the possibility] the truth of antirealism [Kantian]."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anti-realism is saying that the image of the flower maybe is not coming from a flower.

And VA is saying there is nothing that it is coming from, period.

I NEVER said that.

My view is, within the common sense FSRK, something is coming from the external world, BUT such a realization cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.
Rather whatever is perceived as external and independent is subsumed within the sphere of the human factor.
Humans just cannot extricate themselves from the universe in which they are intricately part and parcel of.

The p-realist on the other hand claimed whatever is from the external world is absolutely mind-independent, period!!, so their, "my way or the highway".

[Age]

Anti-realism is saying that the image of the flower maybe is not coming from a flower.

And VA is saying there is nothing that it is coming from, period.

I NEVER said that.

My view is, within the common sense FSRK, something is coming from the external world, BUT such a realization cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

If there was 'the human mind', and 'it' creates 'its own reality', then this could help in explaining the continual bickering among you adult human beings, hitherto when this was being written.

Just look at the amount of bickering and fighting that takes place, not just in forums like this one, but also in 'the whole adult human being created world', again, hitherto when this is being written.

And, the absolute funniest thing to watch and observe here is that these people are fighting and bickering over the topic title here, yet they have not even come to an agreement on the words 'reality' and 'mind' yet. And, more laughingly, they could not do so without first fighting and bickering over what those two words just mean, and are referring to, exactly.

The very reason why these adult human beings kept continually fighting and bickering was just about solely because of the actual different, personal, definitions they each had, held onto, and used for the words that were, literally, being 'used and discussed'.

Rather whatever is perceived as external and independent is subsumed within the sphere of the human factor.
Humans just cannot extricate themselves from the universe in which they are intricately part and parcel of.

The p-realist on the other hand claimed whatever is from the external world is absolutely mind-independent, period!!, so their, "my way or the highway".

These posters here did not even realize that their own personal 'labels' and 'names', which they try to put onto and place on other human beings, do not even work, nor could the always changing, or very personal, definitions ever be true for every so 'labeled' or so 'named' person.

These posters are, literally, 'creating a perception', and not 'creating a reality', with their own pre-existing views and prejudices. A lot of those 'perceptions' also do not 'fit in' with the actual Truth and Reality at all.

Which I could, and would, if challenged, prove irrefutably True.

[Atla]

Another example⁹

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Jim Al-Khalili imo is a 40% realist and 60% antirealist. The % is not so important, what is important is physicists are changing their beliefs and acknowledging the truth of antirealism [Kantian].

I have a great respect for Professor Jim Al-Khalili, so could I please ask you to stop misrepresenting him already? You asshole.

Of course you wouldn't quote the 55:15-56:00 part from the same video (and of course the entire video went over your head):

While it's true that Einstein's dream of finding a reasonable commonsense explanation was shattered for good, my own personal view is that this doesn't necessarily banish physical reality. Like Einstein, I still believe there might be a more palpable explanation underlying the weird results of quantum mechanics. But one thing is clear. Whether there are physical spooky connections, whether there are parallel universes, whether we bring reality into existence by looking.. whatever the truth is, the weirdness of the quantum world won't go away, it will rear its ugly head somewhere.

You stil have no idea what QM interpretations even are. Al-Khalili's favourite interpretation is the Pilot Wave by the way. He's openly a realist like Einstein.

And EVEN the very anti-realist interpretations are arguably not Kantian anti-realisms. These are arguably two different kinds of anti-realisms that aren't compatible.

You did not read my post properly?

I stated;
"Jim Al-Khalili imo is a 40% realist and 60% antirealist.
The % is not so important, what is important is physicists are changing their beliefs and acknowledging [allowing the possibility] the truth of antirealism [Kantian]."

No, you said "acknowledging the truth of".

[Belinda]

I hope to be excused for my long absence from Philosophy Now. However I am interested and have read enough of the replies to get the hang of this debate. Thanks for Jim Al-Khalili's remarks on the existential condition of our human knowledge his input is unfailingly reasoned and lucid.

The point I wish to make is that the idea of minds is not a given reality but is yet another idea which is created de novo by sets of ideas to which many other sets of ideas are partial. In other words , minds are part of the question not part of the answer.

My stance is that of absolute idealism. In writing this short reply I have been subject to the constraints of English which is like , I suppose, all other languages in its lexicon which better suits physical realism.

[Iwannaplato]

And VA is saying there is nothing that it is coming from, period.

I NEVER said that.

The Moon isn't there when we aren't looking. That's when you started saying it.

My view is, within the common sense FSRK, something is coming from the external world, BUT such a realization cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

Yes, there are no ding an sich/things in themselves. There is no thing out there triggering or in any way guiding what we sense and observe. You've said this hundreds of times.

And that's fine. That's a philosophical position. Brining up the 'common sense FSK' is absurd in this context.

There are antirealists who agree with you. There are others who do not. Some are agnostic,

But it's a position you've taken many times. Great, actually. But then, if so, there are things that need to be explained.

Rather whatever is perceived as external and independent is subsumed within the sphere of the human factor.
Humans just cannot extricate themselves from the universe in which they are intricately part and parcel of.

No one's asserting that, nor is anyone asserting you are asserting that.

The p-realist on the other hand claimed whatever is from the external world is absolutely mind-independent, period!!, so their, "my way or the highway".

They are not saying that there is no relationship, when there is a relationship. When you push a chair a realist thinks you push a chair. When light strikes your retina after bouncing off the Moon, there is an interaction. Realists do not thing they are outside the universe. They think that even those parts of the univers that they are not in contact with, AT A GIVEN MOMENT, not affecting or directly affected by continue to exist. That Alpha Centauri will keep burning way over there, even if we die out. Or what's on the backside of the Moon right now that none of us are looking at or something under a stone in the Mariana Trench exist even though not single human is looking at them. And should we see these things later THEY HAD A HISTORY. They didn't arise when we looked. But no one is saying that humans are not part of universe and interacting with it at all times. There are two senses of mind independent and then this conclusion of yours is also based on messy interpretation of Realism.

But
none
of
that
matters.

If there are not things in themselves, why are our experiences so similar to each other?

And that's not to prove you wrong in this thing you are suddenly denying you have said...that's to get an interesting discussion going.

[Atla]

If there are not things in themselves, why are our experiences so similar to each other?

And that's not to prove you wrong in this thing you are suddenly denying you have said...that's to get an interesting discussion going.

How many times did you ask him this without receiving an answer?

And what would your answer be?

[Iwannaplato]

If there are not things in themselves, why are our experiences so similar to each other?

And that's not to prove you wrong in this thing you are suddenly denying you have said...that's to get an interesting discussion going.

How many times did you ask him this without receiving an answer?

Many. And not just in this recent situation but months and months ago.

And what would your answer be?

I can think of three answers and none of them I have thought out fully at all.
1) there could be a connection between minds - not saying in the sense of a collective unconscious a la Jung - but something - so that what we create generally a cohesive singular reality.
2) a multi-solipsism. So, not that there is one mind, but we are all in our singular bubbles.
3) there's a kind of competition or democracy, creating reality (and I think it would have to be retroactive in some ways - and there is, or seems to be, or there are supporters for retrocausality in qm) and possibly renegotiating the whole thing all the time. Consciousness creates reality, but there are many consciousnesses fighting over it. But whatever version wins -is winning - is the only one we notice. If it changes, then our memory also changes, so we're not following the shifting struggling consciously.
4) There's a fourth one but I have even more -lol - trouble trying to formulate it. But essentially we don't find the same thing in the box, but we are kept from realizing this. Though this ends up very much like the multi-solipsism so far.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll think this is all bollocks, but I find it interesting. And, in any case, I think his version of anti-realism needs to justify the miraculous commonalities in the specifics of our reality.

Now he's going so far as to deny he ever said that there are no things in themselves and then went so far as to come up with a hyterical strawman realism where the minds are not in the universe. Rather than realists believing that we are always exeriencing 'other parts of reality' and always in intercausal dynamics with other parts, but those parts we are not in contact with/our minds are not experience continue to exist AND also there were things before we were experiencing things.

He hilariously takes mind independent reality to mean realists think our minds are not in contact with any portion of it. IOW when I leave the bathroom and no one is in there, realists think it's still there. It's not that my mind is connected to nothing, it's now in the kitchen, sniffing my burnt toast and seeing rain out the window. But other parts of the universe that I am not in contact with, even those no one is right now are still there. According to the realists. They think it doesn't depend on minds though minds are interacting with portions of it, at all times, while they are alive.

They believe that there were conditions for life to arise on earth before life. There was an earth then, before minds.

Anyway, seeing his responses makes me think (yet again) that people are smarter than they are. They know when understanding and noticing something will give them a problem, so they don't understand and don't notice it.

It's like people are canny enought to avoid noticing things that would lead to cognitive dissonance. Hence his denial what he's said PLUS his not seeing that even his denial includes the belief I was talking about and his hilarious version of realism.

Here's my Zen koan for VA: How did birds manage to fly before the scientific FSK came up with an explanation?
or
which came first, the FSK or the egg?

[Atla]

If there are not things in themselves, why are our experiences so similar to each other?

And that's not to prove you wrong in this thing you are suddenly denying you have said...that's to get an interesting discussion going.

How many times did you ask him this without receiving an answer?

Many. And not just in this recent situation but months and months ago.

And what would your answer be?

I can think of three answers and none of them I have thought out fully at all.
1) there could be a connection between minds - not saying in the sense of a collective unconscious a la Jung - but something - so that what we create generally a cohesive singular reality.
2) a multi-solipsism. So, not that there is one mind, but we are all in our singular bubbles.
3) there's a kind of competition or democracy, creating reality (and I think it would have to be retroactive in some ways - and there is, or seems to be, or there are supporters for retrocausality in qm) and possibly renegotiating the whole thing all the time. Consciousness creates reality, but there are many consciousnesses fighting over it. But whatever version wins -is winning - is the only one we notice. If it changes, then our memory also changes, so we're not following the shifting struggling consciously.
4) There's a fourth one but I have even more -lol - trouble trying to formulate it. But essentially we don't find the same thing in the box, but we are kept from realizing this. Though this ends up very much like the multi-solipsism so far.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll think this is all bollocks, but I find it interesting. And, in any case, I think his version of anti-realism needs to justify the miraculous commonalities in the specifics of our reality.

Now he's going so far as to deny he ever said that there are no things in themselves and then went so far as to come up with a hyterical strawman realism where the minds are not in the universe. Rather than realists believing that we are always exeriencing 'other parts of reality' and always in intercausal dynamics with other parts, but those parts we are not in contact with/our minds are not experience continue to exist AND also there were things before we were experiencing things.

He hilariously takes mind independent reality to mean realists think our minds are not in contact with any portion of it.

Anyway, seeing his responses makes me think (yet again) that people are smarter than they are. They know when understanding and noticing something will give them a problem, so they don't understand and don't notice it.

It's like people are canny enought to avoid noticing things that would lead to cognitive dissonance. Hence his denial what he's said PLUS his not seeing that even his denial includes the belief I was talking about and his hilarious version of realism.

Here's my Zen koan for VA: How did birds manage to fly before the scientific FSK came up with an explanation?
or
which came first, the FSK or the egg?

Wouldn't say I'd call them bollocks, I've considered them all too. But I'd say that even connections between minds would count as things-in-themselves, I simply see no way to have experiences of common things without things in themselves.

Actually, my real philosophy that I don't really talk about, is roughly 6+4 dimensional where the roughly +4 dimensions are 4 superimposed layers dedicated to your 3) competition/democracy tug-of-war. I seriously try to test that kind of anti-realism except I don't really know how to.

It's not that I find anti-realism bollocks, just kinda useless as a view when we can reproduce their equivalent views in realism too, and they are easier to handle there, to me at least.

I've also considered the "One mind" idea a lot, something that would surprise Age I guess. That we are outlets/cells/eyes etc. of the One mind, maybe a higher dimensional One mind.

[Iwannaplato]

Wouldn't say I'd call them bollocks, I've considered them all too. But I'd say that even connections between minds would count as things-in-themselves, I simply see no way to have experiences of common things without things in themselves.

I suppose 'identity' would have been better. Not in the Age there is only one mind, but that there is an overlap between minds.

Actually, my real philosophy that I don't really talk about, is roughly 6+4 dimensional where the roughly +4 dimensions are 4 superimposed layers dedicated to your 3) competition/democracy tug-of-war. I seriously try to test that kind of anti-realism except I don't really know how to.

I don't understand that. If you'd care to elaborate, go for it.

It's not that I find anti-realism bollocks, just kinda useless as a view when we can reproduce their equivalent views in realism too, and they are easier to handle there, to me at least.

And you can also have selective realism. IOW perhaps there are phenomena where there is no thing in itself. But that doesn't mean that there aren't others or that that is an exception.

I've also considered the "One mind" idea a lot, something that would surprise Age I guess. That we are outlets/cells/eyes etc. of the One mind, maybe a higher dimensional One mind.

Well, it could be a kind of both and situation. We generally want to say there is one mind, so there are no separate minds. But that's in our concepts. Perhaps both are true, in some way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I hope to be excused for my long absence from Philosophy Now. However I am interested and have read enough of the replies to get the hang of this debate. Thanks for Jim Al-Khalili's remarks on the existential condition of our human knowledge his input is unfailingly reasoned and lucid.

The point I wish to make is that the idea of minds is not a given reality but is yet another idea which is created de novo by sets of ideas to which many other sets of ideas are partial. In other words , minds are part of the question not part of the answer.

My stance is that of absolute idealism. In writing this short reply I have been subject to the constraints of English which is like , I suppose, all other languages in its lexicon which better suits physical realism.

Generally, the term mind-independent reality is used, but it is more precise to denote it reality and external world is independent of any human elements.
Thus "Do we create reality with our mind?" meant can reality exists without any human influence?

Thus Jim Al-Khalili answer is somehow-yes [as a Physicist] to the above in accordance to Physics, but he personally could not accept it.
So he has a cognitive dissonance but surely as a rational person, what Physics dictates at the present should override his first-person's opinion.

My point is many physicists and scientists who have had dogmatic p-realists' views are at the least conceding antirealism [Kantian and the like] are a possibility in contrast to a categorical NO like Einstein.

Those who are hardcore p-realists in this forum should take note.

Absolute Idealism of Hegel?
Hegel's Dialectical Process in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=41849
I have been refreshing and researching deeper into Hegel recently.
I like Hegel's dialectical approach [similar to Yin-Yang] but not his ultimate 'THE ABSOLUTE' aka God.