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

[Veritas Aequitas]

The impulse [natural instinct] of Mind-independence as an evolutionary default only becomes problematic when it is idealized [thought] and adopted as an ideology dogmatically which made such a belief fundamentalistic and extremist.

These are all vague terms.
What are the criteria for determining if a realist is an idealogue and fundamentalist and extreme?

Below it seems like 'insisting' is enough.

In my world 'insisting' is not enough to be labeled extreme, fundamentalist, ideological and dogmatic.

Please list the criteria one must meet to be problematic.

An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones."[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.[4]

The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy, a French Enlightenment aristocrat and philosopher, who conceived it in 1796 as the "science of ideas" to develop a rational system of ideas to oppose the irrational impulses of the mob. In political science, the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

Realists [philosophical] beliefs are irrational.

PH & Realists: Prove Reality-Itself Exists?
viewtopic.php?t=41326
I am still waiting for a rational proof to just the above above.

Note this - why philosophical realism is an ideology;
An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones." WIKI

As I had argued, philosophical realism is grounded on an evolutionary default that has psychological impacts on the believer.
At the extreme, philosophical realists will even kill those who oppose their ideas, especially realists who are theists.

In my case, the natural evolutionary adapted mind-independence is an objective fact within the science-biology-psychology FSK grounded on intersubjectivity.

What is an objective MORAL fact [Moral Realism] to me it is conditioned upon a human-based morality-proper FSK.
Because it is human-based, a FSK as objective is grounded on intersubjectivity.

And note

You did not respond to my pointing out that ontological realism is intersubjective and scientists and others can point to scientific FSKs in support of their position and many do.

So, unless you are an idealogue with a fundamentalist, dogmantic and extreme position, you would need to respect their position and not demean them and call them names - by your own criteria.

"ontological realism" is not intersubjective per se.
If one's ontology refer to a reality that is absolutely mind-independent [independent of subjects] that is not intersubjective.

It not demeaning to identify the fact that philosophical realists are ideological with their beliefs.

Objectivity as intersubjectivity means it is grounded on the shared-experiences-beliefs of a collective of subjects.

Obviously you can disagree with them, present your arguments, consider their position false.

As far as I can tell someone who is an ontological realist and who disagrees with you is considered all those pejorative terms. On what grounds?

The term 'ontological' is a very loose term.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
As such, one can be an ontological philosophical realist or ontological empirical realists.
An ontological philosophical realist is likely to be ideological.

[bahman]

As an evolutionary default, all humans are programmed via natural selection that there is a mind-independent reality out there which humans critically depend on to facilitate their survival, i.e. search for food, look out for threats from out there.

Because it is a evolutionary default and a fundamental primal instinct, the majority of humans take that for granted and for most within the philosophy community and elsewhere it dogmatically grasp as an ideological "ism", i.e. as philosophical realism.

Philosophical realists generally are focused on reality as what is perceived, known and described and assume things pre-existed before humans and awaiting humans to discover them.

But the more higher truths from what is an evolutionary default is there are the internal processes of emergence, realization and experiences of 'what is reality' before they are perceived by the sense, known by the intellect and described via the linguistic faculty.

What is ignored here is the 13.7 billion years of physical and evolutionary forces since the Big Bang that are conditioned upon humans in the emergence and their realization of reality.

The point is, as humans evolved up to the present and continually evolve and progress, humans are slowly becoming aware, the merely relying on the evolutionary default of mind-independence is a limitation to the progress and well-being of mankind.

Note the progress, e.g. from common sense to Newtonian Classical Physics [mind-independent], Einsteinian Physics [some elements of human involvement] to QM Physics of non-locality [high degree of human interactions].
This is the evident progress from mind-independence to human interaction with reality.

Here is a typical discussion where philosophical realists are so primitive insisting there is an independent reality out there independent of any human involvements.

Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.

But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?

Have a go at answering that question without repeating your FSR and FSK claim.

Strawman again.

As mentioned a 'million' times, what I believe is this;
whatever is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human-based FSR or FSK.
As such, if there are no humans, then, there are no human-based-FSR-FSK reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity.

Hey! your skull must be VERY thick,
I have asserted a million times,
Before there are human perceptions, beliefs, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality,
there are the prior processes of emergence and realization within humans [of course via FSR and FSK] as conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of "deterministic" forces since the Big Bang.

Btw, that 13.7 billion years of deterministic" forces since the Big Bang is conditioned via the human based science-cosmological-FSR-FSK.
You just cannot disentangle the human factor from any sense of reality.

You are merely relying on an evolutionary default that there is an independent reality even if there are no humans; this is illusory and delusional in the perspective of advance knowledge, i.e. not common sense.

Note:
Natural epistemology or evolved metaphysics?
Developmental evidence for early-developed, intuitive, category-specific, incomplete, and stubborn metaphysical presumptions
PASCAL BOYER
viewtopic.php?p=673826#p673826


Views?

The truth is a set of facts about reality. It is objective so it does not depend on whether human exists or not. Knowledge however is subjective which is about humans knowing the truth. It seems to me that you are mixing knowledge with the truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The truth is a set of facts about reality.
It is objective so it does not depend on whether human exists or not.
Knowledge however is subjective which is about humans knowing the truth.
It seems to me that you are mixing knowledge with the truth.

What you are saying is,
knowledge is perceiving & knowing <--Reality Gap--> the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

In the above, there is a <--Reality Gap--> between you [individual humans] what is supposed the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

Because of the 'Reality GAP' you cannot be 100%-certain what the "supposed reality" out there, is really real.

Since you cannot be 100%-certain you have to leave room [doubt] for some % of uncertainty.

With a % of uncertainty, there is a possibility of 99.99% uncertainty [doubt] about what is the supposed mind-independent reality.

This is where Descartes came in with his radical skepticism that 'what you think is really real out there' could be the deception of an evil demon that is leading you to believe there is a mind-independent reality out there; the only real and certain thing is your "I exists".

Skepticism about a mind-independent reality had been around since 400BCE with Pyrrho and has not been resolved up the present.
Skepticism [human related] is antirealism.

Those [& you] who insist there is a mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans belong to philosophical realism.

For philosophy sake, it is not wise to be too hasty to insist your philosophical realism is the true view without considering the alternative antirealists view. As such you need to understand the antirealists' views before making judgment.

How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?
viewtopic.php?t=41327

I have argued philosophical realism is not tenable because it is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Thus my argument,
There is no objective mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans.
What is really real, spontaneously emerged and is spontaneously realized with the human conditions which is then subsequently perceived, believed, known and described on initially a first-person basis [subjective]; this is then shared intersubjectively as being objective.

Objective is grounded on subjectivity, i.e. collective-subjectivity or intersubjectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"There is probably no such thing as "prior emergence and realization". The brain/mind does some pre-processing, which probably has zero relevance to the prior existence of the external world."
viewtopic.php?p=682475#p682475

It is not that the brain/mind does some pre-processing.
The fact is the brain/mind has been pre-programmed with neural algorithms inherited from our ancient ancestors from 3.5 billion years ago.
These pre-programmed algorithms dictate the spontaneous emergence and realization of 'what-is-reality' specific to the individuals and species [collectively] out of a "soup-of-particles".

This "soup-of-particles" is also an emergence and realization.
Emerged from what?
This question re 'philosophical realism' is a non-starter because it is an impossibility for any pre-existing mind-independent reality to exists as real.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Emergence in this case is a TOP-DOWN affair [based on what is experienced and evident], not a BOTTTOM-UP speculation based on something pre-existing.

It is over billion of years of evolution that living entities via self-referencing construct their own specific reality to facilitate their survival.
Humans are the co-creators of the reality they are in.

How Humans in their inherent nature 'construct' a Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40749

As such, what is most-real must be interdependent with what is experienced, possible experience and limited up to whatever empirical-evidence is available & coupled with rationality.
To insist on what-is-really-real [mind-independent] which can only be assumed and speculated beyond experience [& possible experience], is delusional.

[bahman]

The truth is a set of facts about reality.
It is objective so it does not depend on whether human exists or not.
Knowledge however is subjective which is about humans knowing the truth.
It seems to me that you are mixing knowledge with the truth.

What you are saying is,
knowledge is perceiving & knowing <--Reality Gap--> the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

In the above, there is a <--Reality Gap--> between you [individual humans] what is supposed the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

Because of the 'Reality GAP' you cannot be 100%-certain what the "supposed reality" out there, is really real.

Since you cannot be 100%-certain you have to leave room [doubt] for some % of uncertainty.

With a % of uncertainty, there is a possibility of 99.99% uncertainty [doubt] about what is the supposed mind-independent reality.

This is where Descartes came in with his radical skepticism that 'what you think is really real out there' could be the deception of an evil demon that is leading you to believe there is a mind-independent reality out there; the only real and certain thing is your "I exists".

Skepticism about a mind-independent reality had been around since 400BCE with Pyrrho and has not been resolved up the present.
Skepticism [human related] is antirealism.

Those [& you] who insist there is a mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans belong to philosophical realism.

For philosophy sake, it is not wise to be too hasty to insist your philosophical realism is the true view without considering the alternative antirealists view. As such you need to understand the antirealists' views before making judgment.

How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?
viewtopic.php?t=41327

I have argued philosophical realism is not tenable because it is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Thus my argument,
There is no objective mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans.
What is really real, spontaneously emerged and is spontaneously realized with the human conditions which is then subsequently perceived, believed, known and described on initially a first-person basis [subjective]; this is then shared intersubjectively as being objective.

Objective is grounded on subjectivity, i.e. collective-subjectivity or intersubjectivity.

Don't you believe in science? It is clear now which part of the brain is responsible for the creation of different perceptions. The reality is different from what we perceive but without reality, there could not be any human.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The truth is a set of facts about reality.
It is objective so it does not depend on whether human exists or not.
Knowledge however is subjective which is about humans knowing the truth.
It seems to me that you are mixing knowledge with the truth.

What you are saying is,
knowledge is perceiving & knowing <--Reality Gap--> the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

In the above, there is a <--Reality Gap--> between you [individual humans] what is supposed the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

Because of the 'Reality GAP' you cannot be 100%-certain what the "supposed reality" out there, is really real.

Since you cannot be 100%-certain you have to leave room [doubt] for some % of uncertainty.

With a % of uncertainty, there is a possibility of 99.99% uncertainty [doubt] about what is the supposed mind-independent reality.

This is where Descartes came in with his radical skepticism that 'what you think is really real out there' could be the deception of an evil demon that is leading you to believe there is a mind-independent reality out there; the only real and certain thing is your "I exists".

Skepticism about a mind-independent reality had been around since 400BCE with Pyrrho and has not been resolved up the present.
Skepticism [human related] is antirealism.

Those [& you] who insist there is a mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans belong to philosophical realism.

For philosophy sake, it is not wise to be too hasty to insist your philosophical realism is the true view without considering the alternative antirealists view. As such you need to understand the antirealists' views before making judgment.

How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?
viewtopic.php?t=41327

I have argued philosophical realism is not tenable because it is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Thus my argument,
There is no objective mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans.
What is really real, spontaneously emerged and is spontaneously realized with the human conditions which is then subsequently perceived, believed, known and described on initially a first-person basis [subjective]; this is then shared intersubjectively as being objective.

Objective is grounded on subjectivity, i.e. collective-subjectivity or intersubjectivity.

Don't you believe in science? It is clear now which part of the brain is responsible for the creation of different perceptions.
The reality is different from what we perceive but without reality, there could not be any human.

You have missed my main point above.

Yes, science can explain how humans has perceptions, but science cannot guarantee what humans perceived are 100% of that supposed mind-independent 'reality' out there.

Prove to me there is a really real mind-independent reality out there?

The reality is different from what we perceive but without reality, there could not be any human.

This is incomplete and bad rationality.

There is no question of 'without reality' because we are already in and are a part and parcel of reality.
It is also evident there are things and humans within reality.

While common sense tells us there are mind-independent things and reality, we cannot jump to the conclusion that things and reality are absolutely independent of the human mind.

From a more refined sense of rationality [not common sense] again show me how can you go about proving there are things that are absolutely mind-independent, i.e. without using human minds at all to do so.
There is no way you can do it, if you insist, show me how?

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.

Most modern scientist understand true reality is a deception, thus the focus on science is on its usefulness and success, not on how well it represent reality: here from a credible scientist,

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

[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?

[Atla]

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?

Kant must have implied it somewhere. Before commenting you have to read the CPR at least 10 times and think very hard what it was that Kant was really trying to say, but hasn't explicitly said. You have to learn to read between the lines.

[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?

Kant must have implied it somewhere. Before commenting you have to read the CPR at least 10 times and think very hard what it was that Kant was really trying to say, but hasn't explicitly said. You have to learn to read between the lines.

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.

[bahman]

What you are saying is,
knowledge is perceiving & knowing <--Reality Gap--> the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

In the above, there is a <--Reality Gap--> between you [individual humans] what is supposed the objective truth which is 'a set of facts' about a mind-independent reality out there.

Because of the 'Reality GAP' you cannot be 100%-certain what the "supposed reality" out there, is really real.

Since you cannot be 100%-certain you have to leave room [doubt] for some % of uncertainty.

With a % of uncertainty, there is a possibility of 99.99% uncertainty [doubt] about what is the supposed mind-independent reality.

This is where Descartes came in with his radical skepticism that 'what you think is really real out there' could be the deception of an evil demon that is leading you to believe there is a mind-independent reality out there; the only real and certain thing is your "I exists".

Skepticism about a mind-independent reality had been around since 400BCE with Pyrrho and has not been resolved up the present.
Skepticism [human related] is antirealism.

Those [& you] who insist there is a mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans belong to philosophical realism.

For philosophy sake, it is not wise to be too hasty to insist your philosophical realism is the true view without considering the alternative antirealists view. As such you need to understand the antirealists' views before making judgment.

How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?
viewtopic.php?t=41327

I have argued philosophical realism is not tenable because it is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Thus my argument,
There is no objective mind-independent reality out there regardless of humans.
What is really real, spontaneously emerged and is spontaneously realized with the human conditions which is then subsequently perceived, believed, known and described on initially a first-person basis [subjective]; this is then shared intersubjectively as being objective.

Objective is grounded on subjectivity, i.e. collective-subjectivity or intersubjectivity.

Don't you believe in science? It is clear now which part of the brain is responsible for the creation of different perceptions.
The reality is different from what we perceive but without reality, there could not be any human.

You have missed my main point above.

Yes, science can explain how humans has perceptions, but science cannot guarantee what humans perceived are 100% of that supposed mind-independent 'reality' out there.

Prove to me there is a really real mind-independent reality out there?

The reality is different from what we perceive but without reality, there could not be any human.

This is incomplete and bad rationality.

There is no question of 'without reality' because we are already in and are a part and parcel of reality.
It is also evident there are things and humans within reality.

While common sense tells us there are mind-independent things and reality, we cannot jump to the conclusion that things and reality are absolutely independent of the human mind.

From a more refined sense of rationality [not common sense] again show me how can you go about proving there are things that are absolutely mind-independent, i.e. without using human minds at all to do so.
There is no way you can do it, if you insist, show me how?

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.

Most modern scientist understand true reality is a deception, thus the focus on science is on its usefulness and success, not on how well it represent reality: here from a credible scientist,

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

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.

[Atla]

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?

Kant must have implied it somewhere. Before commenting you have to read the CPR at least 10 times and think very hard what it was that Kant was really trying to say, but hasn't explicitly said. You have to learn to read between the lines.

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.

Very good And he even beat Darwin to it

[Iwannaplato]

Very good And he even beat Darwin to it

Well, this is hush hush, but we're talking about Darwin's past life.

[Atla]

Very good And he even beat Darwin to it

Well, this is hush hush, but we're talking about Darwin's past life.

Kant was also Buddha's reincarnation, did you know? Plus hidden in the CPR is the knowledge that makes him the real father of the internet. And computers. And science and art. But most importantly, FSKs.

It's all there if you know how to look.

[Iwannaplato]

Very good And he even beat Darwin to it

Well, this is hush hush, but we're talking about Darwin's past life.

Kant was also Buddha's reincarnation, did you know? Plus hidden in the CPR is the knowledge that makes him the real father of the internet. And computers. And science and art. But most importantly, FSKs.

It's all there if you know how to look.

A: Tell me who's playing third base.
C: Kant.
A: Why not?
C: No, he is.
A: Who is?
C: Kant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.