VA: The Description is not The-Described.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Description is NOT and NEVER The-Described.
This is so obvious and yet PH [despite a 'million' reminder] accused me of conflating the description with the-described.

The confusion by PH arose because he adopts the Philosophical Realism ideology that reality exists independent of the human mind. [not re Descartes' dualism]. Therefore whatever is reality [the described] cannot be the description of that mind-independent reality.

But Philosophical Realism is not realistic nor tenable, i.e. ultimately false.

Ffs. It's the description that's 'conditioned' etc - not the events themselves. You mistake the description for the described, and then say the described isn't 'valid' outside the description.

Nah, strawman again.
How many times must I repeat, I understand fully, "the description is NOT the described."
I even raised this thread [similar] as a reminder to you;

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925

Note the 13 billions years of history that is conditioned upon humans prior to their realization of human-based-facts [the-described] which is subsequently perceived, known and described.

• As I had stated above,
  you cannot claim 'synaptic events' exist as real because your father or mother said so, or
  a political, historical, astronomical, economical FSK said.
  That 'synaptic events' exist as real must be qualified to the human-based science-neuroscience FSK. [notice you deceptively ignore this point].
  
  In addition, the human-based science-neuroscience FSK is conditioned upon
  1. 200K years of human evolution, 4 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billion years of physical expansion of Big Bang Forces,
  where 1. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.
  
  There is no way you can ever claim there are synaptic events as features of reality that exist in-themselves or by-themselves without any qualifications to a human-based FSK.

From the above, with a 13 billion years of history conditioned upon human beings, what is reality emerged therefrom and it is realized as the-described and subsequently is perceived known and described.

A crude analogy;
It is like an inventor who invented [in progressive stages] a creation and thereafter perceived, known, and then described that creation.
So, the description of that creation is not the-creation per se, but that creation is not independent of the creator's mind.

Similarly, it is the same with reality,
humans are the co-creator [participate and contribute] to the emergence of reality which is then subsequently perceived, known and described.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35227

As such, The Description is not The-Described but not in the Philosophical Realism illusory sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Agent Smith]

This is old news but I suppose it doesn't hurt to be reminded of our failings at every opportunity which is always!

In academia, it goes by another, more familiar name, but now that I think of it, you're griping about sumthin' else entirely. However, it's still an aged horse that's probably been flogged to death in every way possible.

I'm more interested in the larger picture - a wicked problem in the zeitgeist of the modern world, a world that's dominated by a certain outlook among the intelligentsia.

[lesauxjg]

Why, in trying to understand things do you have to describe them?

For instance, you might instead notice what you notice and, by making comparisons, try to avoid drawing conclusions beyond it as the situation develops. This is not 'describing it' unless, by noticing there are other possible ways of handling the subject, you suppose any way of handling it must be 'our way of handling it' must add something to it, and so must be a description. But if you make comparisons and in that way think you can avoid drawing conclusions beyond factors or objects as the situation develops, this is not, apparently, adding anything to the situation, because you have avoided going beyond the factors, not added anything to them. Since you are not adding anything to them, they, themselves, must appear sufficient to produce what happens.

For example; a ball pushed into a bucket of water; The ball and its volume apparently continues, so we don't have to go beyond the continued existence of that. Its solid behavior by which it is experienced to stop other objects occupying the same space seems to continue, so we don't have to go beyond that. The volume of the water seems to continue, along with its fluid behavior, and weight whereby it conforms around other objects, and stays at the bottom of the bucket seem to continue. Similarly the bucket along with its solidity seems to continue. The result of all these things continuing together is as the ball is pushed into the water, continuing volume of water plus continuing volume of ball is greater than volume of water alone, so the water level rises in the bucket.

In this we haven't apparently had to add anything to what was noticeable in the situation but have noticed how the various factors apparently continue through the situation and their continuation (we don't have to go beyond any of them) brings about the result.

But, if instead of making comparisons like this, we think all reasoning must be based around logical deduction, and so must involve words and language, then everything seems to depend on our handling of it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why, in trying to understand things do you have to describe them?

• Describe = give a detailed account in words of.
  to tell or depict in written or spoken words; give an account of:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/describe

Description in words is critical for understanding things, BUT not all understanding need to be described [as defined] in words, e.g. intuitive understanding, understanding from direct experiences, etc.

Whilst not all communication of information are in words and language, description is very critical in communications.

But, if instead of making comparisons like this, we think all reasoning must be based around logical deduction, and so must involve words and language, then everything seems to depend on our handling of it.

Not all on logical deduction, note induction [science] and abduction [hypotheses] reasoning.

My point of the OP is,
before a thing can be described from being perceived and known, there is a web of complex processes within the brain and human self that enable a thing to emerge and be realized [make real] that is conditioned upon;

• 1. 200K years of human evolution, 4 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billion years of physical expansion of Big Bang Forces,
  where 1. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.

Things just do not appear out of nowhere independent of humans then awaiting humans to be perceived, known and described those things.
There is a prior human-based realization of the thing before it can be perceived, known and described things.
As such, to claim things exist independent of humans in the ultimate sense is an impossibility.

[lesauxjg]

But what about evolution through natural selection?
This has to go on for hundreds of millions of years before there were any humans. And it is supposed to have produced humans and human understanding. To suppose it depends on human understanding gets things the wrong way round. If it did depend on human understanding, it couldn't have, independently of humans, produced humans, which is one of the things it is supposed to have done.
One of the principles behind it is uniformitarianism, the principle that natural phenomena should be accounted for by the continued operation of objects, properties and processes currently observable. --As Hume pointed out in his chapter of the Treatise "Of skepticism with regard to the senses" if objects continue when not perceived then their existence must be independent of the perception. He also claims that "The supposition of the continued existence of sensible objects or perceptions implies no contradiction." and so the same unaltered being or perception may be sometimes present and sometimes absent from a bundle of perceptions that form a self. (quoted from memory).

[Veritas Aequitas]

But what about evolution through natural selection?
This has to go on for hundreds of millions of years before there were any humans.
And it is supposed to have produced humans and human understanding.

To suppose it depends on human understanding gets things the wrong way round.

If it did depend on human understanding, it couldn't have, independently of humans, produced humans, which is one of the things it is supposed to have done.

Your last point is merely an assumption.
First there is no such thing as an absolute reality which is absolutely independent of humans and human conditions.
If there is any deliberation of such an absolute independent reality, then it is merely an assumption of an illusion.
At the extreme, theists reified this illusion as God, an entity independent of humans.

Since there is no absolutely independent reality, reality is realized within humans in various modes, i.e.
1. Common Sense or the vulgar sense by earlier philosophers.
2. Conventional sense - social, tradition, customs, etc.
3. General Science, mathematics,
4. Newtonian - independent things
5. Einsteinian - independent things + observers' effect
6. QM - non-independent, reality realized upon measurement or observation.

The above 1-5 reflect the increasing degree of precision in the realization of reality within humans. [non-humans would realize reality differently relative to their conditions, e.g. viruses, bacteria, sonar bats, etc.]

To simply state "it depends on human understanding" is very misleading.

My point is, the "realization of reality" is relative to the human conditions, i.e. no-humans, then no human-based realized reality via a human-based FSK.
It is not "depend on" [as if created by] but rather it is "inevitably related" somehow.

The obvious reality is humans at present are real based on verification and justification of empirical evidences.
From the above empirical evidence we [humans] can THEORIZE [note theorized] and realized the reality of the emergence of human beings to appx 250,000 years ago, evolving from 4 billions years of organic evolution which is linked to the Big Bang 13 billion years ago.

While we [humans] can theorize and realize the above reality [the-described] occur independent of humans in one sense,
we cannot escape the fact that this realization of independent reality is ultimately subsumed within human conditions in the ultimate sense.

As such, "the-described" [not the description] cannot be ultimately independent of the human conditions.

One of the principles behind it is uniformitarianism, the principle that natural phenomena should be accounted for by the continued operation of objects, properties and processes currently observable. --As Hume pointed out in his chapter of the Treatise "Of skepticism with regard to the senses" if objects continue when not perceived then their existence must be independent of the perception. He also claims that "The supposition of the continued existence of sensible objects or perceptions implies no contradiction." and so the same unaltered being or perception may be sometimes present and sometimes absent from a bundle of perceptions that form a self. (quoted from memory).

Hume is a skeptic and an empiricist who believe reality is based purely on empirical evidences that are verified and justified.

I don't think Hume is a good authority to argue your points;
Note this;
"Hume the philosopher suspends his judgement on Realism [mind-independence], whereas Hume the common man firmly believes in the existence of Real entities."

In this article, a novel interpretation of one of the problems of Hume scholarship is defended: his view of Metaphysical Realism or the belief in an external world (that there are ontologically and causally perception-independent, absolutely external and continued, i.e. Real entities).
According to this interpretation, Hume's attitude in the domain of philosophy should be distinguished from his view in the domain of everyday life: Hume the philosopher suspends his judgement on Realism, whereas Hume the common man firmly believes in the existence of Real entities.

The defended reading is thus a sceptical and Realist interpretation of Hume. As such, it belongs to the class of what can be called no-single-Hume interpretations (Richard H. Popkin, Robert J. Fogelin, Donald L. M. Baxter), by contrast to single-Hume readings, which include Realist (naturalist, New Humean) and the traditional Reid-Green interpretation (i.e. Hume believes that there are no Real entities).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=rbjh20#:

[Agent Smith]

From my private pouch of experience, I can say, in fact I must say, the OP's claim isn't wrong per se or ... I forgot or ... I failed ta notice the pachyderm in the room!

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. (My bad.) Do you agree that a description is not the described?

No need to bang on about what constitutes what we call a fact - or about fsks. A yes or no answer will do.

Since English is not my first language thus cannot express with the highest degree of efficiency, I asked ChatGpt [with reservation for help] to answer on my behalf;

• "While I acknowledge the dichotomy posed in the question, the issue of whether a description is or is not the described is intricately tied to broader philosophical discussions such as realism and anti-realism.
  This binary framework might not fully capture the depth of perspectives on the relationship between language, perception, and reality.
  The nature of this philosophical inquiry is complex, and a comprehensive understanding requires considering various viewpoints and theoretical nuances.
  Therefore, a simple yes or no answer might not do justice to the richness of the debate."

Agree?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. (My bad.) Do you agree that a description is not the described?

No need to bang on about what constitutes what we call a fact - or about fsks. A yes or no answer will do.

Since English is not my first language thus cannot express with the highest degree of efficiency, I asked ChatGpt [with reservation for help] to answer on my behalf;

• "While I acknowledge the dichotomy posed in the question, the issue of whether a description is or is not the described is intricately tied to broader philosophical discussions such as realism and anti-realism.
  This binary framework might not fully capture the depth of perspectives on the relationship between language, perception, and reality.
  The nature of this philosophical inquiry is complex, and a comprehensive understanding requires considering various viewpoints and theoretical nuances.
  Therefore, a simple yes or no answer might not do justice to the richness of the debate."

Agree?

What's your opinion? Try thinking critically about this explanation. What does it actually say?

Can you produce a description that is the described - or could be called the described? Or a description that demonstrates an 'excluded middle' - subverting the 'binary framework': description/described?

You keep trying to drag me into your kindi with ignorance of the critical nuances involved in is particular issue.
It is only within common sense and the linguistic FSK that a description is not the-described.

But there is a lot to it on how the description and the-described are interconnected.
Note this thread I raised,

Linking 'The-Described" to its Description?
viewtopic.php?t=41060
Do you have a counter for the above?

The following threads are related to the above issue;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

[Atla]

kindi!

On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that our non-abstract descriptions do not relate to any external non-abstract objectively existing object?

The idea that our non-abstract descriptions do not relate to any external, non-abstract objectively existing object is generally considered a highly irrational notion. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the least rational and 10 being the most rational, this idea would typically be rated very close to 1.

In our everyday experience and in the framework of common sense and empirical understanding, it is widely accepted that our descriptions, especially those related to concrete, tangible objects and phenomena, do indeed relate to external, objectively existing objects. This is a foundational premise of how we understand and interact with the world. Challenging this idea would require substantial and convincing philosophical or epistemological arguments, and such arguments remain highly contentious and are not widely accepted within the realms of rational discourse.

God gave it a 1/10. Ouch. I would have given it twice as much.

(But that's just because I'm a multiversist, where strange "other" possibilities make a comeback, like simulation and brain-in-a-vat, and it's exceedingly difficult to estimate their probabilities.)