The Objective Realm

[Sculptor]

I was never disagreeing with you in this regard. I am a realist but not a materialist.

I am looking for an explanation as to how you think that consciousness/life deserves this special property, "subjective" when the explanation you have provided thus far can be applied to things that are not conscious and not alive.

If humans have object-permanence, then we are Objects, in addition to what we call "Subjects"—so both Subject & Object.

Only relatively.
We are not objectively subjective, any more than we are subjectively objective.
We are only objective and subjective in as much as we relate.

You premised Reality on your own Subjectivity. This contradicts object-permanence through your own reasoning. You've repeatedly claimed that we only can know object-permanence first through the senses.

No it does not.
YOU only have your own personal outlook from which to understand what you take to be "reality". Since it is your POV, then it can only be subjective. You have to consult the testimony of others to understand the finer points of objectivity, through agreement of criteria. THis thing which is only an aspiration but can never be fully achieved since it is not unimaginable; but is not possible to witness all of reality from a completely objective standpoint, and the fact that humans have "objective permanence" does not mean they have access to an objective reality. An objective reality must be constructed painstakingly from the POVs of each subject.

But now you've stated that object-permanence does come about through empirical/logical/rational thought. Why does it matter how you, or babies, come about it, when it is already taken for given? It doesn't matter that object-permanence comes after your conscious-awareness is formed; because I argue, object-permanence represents any person, any baby, and Subject discovering something innate (some process/pattern/activity) about the universe, about Existence, that precedes Awareness, Perception, and Consciousness.

And the fact that you miss the point I just made above explains why this part of your text is confused.

In other words, object-permanence is not an "Imagining" about the universe, it is a type of "waking up" as to the Nature of the Universe or Existence.

So once you've awakened...why not apply this newfound Rationality to everything else, not just your mother?

This means that it is The Subject, what you've agued is your Reality, that is the Exception to the rule, not the Norm. Your Subjective-Reality is the "rarity" of Nature, not the Object-Permanence. Or another argument...human consciousness is unique because of the Evolution required to "build" or "create" or "manifest" such a "Subjective-Reality". The Object-Permanence precedes Awareness.

Do you disagree?

Ditto

[Wizard22]

Here is where you make your first mistake.
Objectivity is not Consciousness, ss it has to exist beyond our consciousness.
We know about it through our subjective exerience, so we believe it exists, but it is not consciousness.

If humans are both subjects and have object-permanence, then the case can be made that humans are objects, as Trajik Logic has just laid-out.

And here is where you decend into your second major error.
Religions might pretend objectivity because they believe that their's is the one true religion.
It is not.

Actually it does, because we only have our perspective.

Religious people might think they have special access to the objective; they do not.
THis is at least one reason why they disagree so much and love to kill each other - because god is on their side.

Looking back - I wonder if your two errors are linked.
The first would seem to imply that beyind the world of human experience is a consciousness; and maybe this is why you feel so free to give religion some sort of special case? (your second error)

Yes, religions do make claims over the "Objective Realm" in order to bolster their presumed Authority/Truth/Rationale/Faith, etc.

It's not that they're a "special case", they're the main case. Major religions represent, what, 85% of humanity? That's a problem, if 85% of humans are flatly wrong...or right, about their "Objective" morality.

Yes, they do found their claims on an "Objective Consciousness", which is contradictory, because it confuses Subjectivity and Objectivity together, as-if they can be conflated or equivocated. They can't be. That's what I'm arguing against Trajik Logic right now.

If there's Object-Permanence...then what is "Subjectivity" except a type of false-reality that people delude themselves into?

[Wizard22]

No it does not.
YOU only have your own personal outlook from which to understand what you take to be "reality". Since it is your POV, then it can only be subjective. You have to consult the testimony of others to understand the finer points of objectivity, through agreement of criteria. THis thing which is only an aspiration but can never be fully achieved since it is not unimaginable; but is not possible to witness all of reality from a completely objective standpoint, and the fact that humans have "objective permanence" does not mean they have access to an objective reality. An objective reality must be constructed painstakingly from the POVs of each subject.

But we don't presume Object-Permanence from our senses, so it's not dependent upon our subjective perspectives.

As Trajik Logic claimed, it comes from empirical, logical deduction. And I've responded and argue, it's something discovered as pre-existing consciousness, that consciousness depends upon. It's something that some minds can and do "wake up to". This is why religious people like to claim it as "Miracles", "Divinity", "Enlightenment", "God", etc.

[Wizard22]

Does ANY who thinks or BELIEVES that 'objectivity' exists can be accessed through some 'thing' ELSE on than through 'Reason/Logic'?

Subjectivists (Trajik Logic) believe that it must be accessed through the Senses first, not Reason/Logic first.

I argue that they have it backward.

Also, what if EVERY perspective HAS TO BE 'subjective', and 'Reason/Logic' exists IN 'subjective views/perspectives',then 'Objectivity' is FOUND and SEEN through 'subjective views and perspectives', right?

I haven't heard any good arguments to claim that Logic is "subjective". Logic is presumed to be Objective, as are "Natural Laws", Laws of Nature.

What do 'you' MEAN by 'end of time'?

It's an expression to bolster my argument about Conservation of Energy and Motion/Force.

Existence is "balanced" or "at rest" unless energy is transferred. Consciousness uses a lot of energy...rocks resting in crevices, do not.

[Wizard22]

You disagree with what I wrote earlier? i.e.

To be realistic and objective,
I cannot simply state "I exists."
Rather it has to be predicated, i.e.

• 1. "I exists as a human person as predicated upon the common-sense FSK" which is not credible nor reliable.
  To be more credible, I will claim,
  "I exists as a human being as predicated upon the science-biology FSR-FSK.
  To be more precise, I will claim,
  "I exists as a specific quantity of particles as predicated upon the science-biology-chemistry-physics FSR-FSK.
  And so on based on other FSKs.
  The above are all verifiable and justifiable empirically as real and objective.
  You cannot deny the above are true as qualified to the specific FSK.
  
  Thus to insist "I exists" is not realistic and objective.
  It has to be predicated as above.

Aside from your addition point below, do you agree the above is realistic and objective with more details and precision?

Of course, really your whole life is a 'Testament' to Objectivity or Objective-Existence. All life is.

I do not agree with that.
As I had stated "existence" cannot be an object.
Existence is 'being' or "is', thus a verb not a noun, thus cannot be an object as a noun.
So, to be more precise, the "I exist" which which is often taken for granted as something, has to be predicated with something to be an object or a noun.

Why not?—Why can't Object be a verb?? (It does have a verb-form in American English btw)

I object, Your Honor!

To seek the final cause [or to reproduce the process] on how non-sentient objects can combine to give sentience and consciousness is a frivolous quest.
This is why Hume applied Skepticism to such a question.

Really? I think it's one of the most interesting Philosophical inquiries! What is the (literal-physical) meaning of Life?

My approach is TOP-DOWN.
It is a fact that all humans have consciousness and a high degree of self-awareness in contrast to the 'higher animals' and no-self-awareness in the lower animals.
Consciousness is an emergent out of the complex interactions of billions of variables.
What we need to know is to study 'consciousness' and 'sentience' from a TOP DOWN basis to understand its mechanisms down to as far as the empirical evidences can support and couple that with rationality and critical thinking.

Are you a very religious person (so it seems)? That's a typical premise of religious people. It has its uses, but it goes the opposite direction of Philosophy. I think Bottom-Up approach is required to understand how humanity, or Subjects, discover this Object-Permanence. It's as-if life and biology 'forgets' its own being...in the attempt to become Conscious/Aware/Awake.

It's like a Sacrifice to Consciousness: Forgetting/Ignorance.

It is not difficult from the TOP-DOWN approach to understand what is consciousness and sentience based on empirical evidences supported with critical thinking.
From within the Tree of Life one can analyze the evolution of consciousness from the one-cell animals to the most complex human being based on their neural complexities that enables the emergence of consciousness in humans.

Agreed, that's why it's important to understand both directions of perspective: top-down and bottom-up.

[Wizard22]

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

The problem is resolved in understanding that there is no "outside". Our minds are real. They are real parts of the world. They cause things to happen in the world. So the world and our minds are part of the same stuff and can interact causally. We have access to anything if we use the right sensory device to access it. As I pointed out in my prior posts we have developed technology to access parts of reality that we cannot access with our senses. We have the potential to access anything and everything when we look in the right place at the right time with the right senses.

I define reality as all there is which includes minds. Actuality isn't needed. If Actuality is undifferentiated, then how and why do we perceive reality as differentiated. Your explanation seems to fall into the same dualistic trap Wiz finds themselves in. In separating our minds and knowledge from the rest of the world you create problems of how they interact and end up making minds and knowledge special in relation to the other natural processes without any reason to support this special status other than your own subjective need to make it special. Minds are not special. Making value judgements stems from our own subjective need to be special, but humans and their minds are not any more special that the ocean and its waves or the sun and its shine. If you really want to reach some level of objectivity then discard your values because in the "eyes" of the universe, you and your mind are not special, or separate from reality.

Consciousness -is- the act of Separation between Subject and Object!

Consciousness is the process of the Subject "becoming aware" of its own Distinction, as "not an object any longer", as alive and awake.

[Wizard22]

I'll sum a few things up:

Trajik is a "Subjectivist-Realist".
I am an "Objectivist-Realist".

My argument is that Objectivity is "realer" than Subjectivity, which means that Objectivity is more real and Subjectivity is less real. I presume that Trajik will claim the opposite. Objectivity, to Trajik, is either less real (than Subjectivity) or simply not real at all. And there is "no reality" in which Objectivity can exist. This seems to be our dispute.

My argument hinges on how Object-Permanence is understood and experienced by the human mind/body/subjectivity. It is *NOT* accessed through the senses, but through what Kant claimed is "Pure Reason". It is only logical, and perhaps not even empirical. Because it cannot validated nor verified through sensual experience. In other words, you cannot witness your mother shut the door between you and her, you no longer see her, but you "do see her". There is no subjective method, or experience, or rationale, that can possibly claim or even think/comprehend/imagine that "she's still there".

Consider Object-Permanence...explain it. Why does a baby or child begin to believe its mother is "still there" when unseen? Why do people believe in unseen, unexperienced things? I don't just mean the mother; I mean all things. It's not "enough" to have sensual experience, but the human mind goes further to ascertain unexperienced parts of the world. This is not only spatial, but temporal. Human beings want to know about what comes before and what comes after your Subjective, Conscious, Experience.

Hence why Religions step-in here, assert Authority, over "After-life, Heaven, Hell, Eternity"...to fill an intrinsic, intuitive Need, by mortal life.

[Wizard22]

A baby wants to believe that when he/she does not see the mother—that the mother is still there, still alive, still caring, still protecting: a type of Immortality.

Is this the basis for the baby to begin believing, that when the mother is absent, that she is still there, and always exists?

Is Object-Permanence a matter of Desire (for the Mother), or perhaps from a type of "momentous expectation" that objects in motion, stay in motion, unless acted-upon from an "Outside(?)" source?

[Age]

Does ANY who thinks or BELIEVES that 'objectivity' exists can be accessed through some 'thing' ELSE on than through 'Reason/Logic'?

Subjectivists (Trajik Logic) believe that it must be accessed through the Senses first, not Reason/Logic first.

Well could 'reason/logic' even come-to-exist WITHOUT knowledge or information coming through 'the senses' first?

Is, for example, a new born human baby ABLE TO 'reason out' 'things', with or through 'logic', BEFORE 'the senses' of 'the body' has even been able to 'transfer' knowledge/information, of the so-called 'outside or external world', FIRST?

The 'IRREFUTABLE REAL, or Objective, world' gets 'transferred' or is 'accessed' through 'the senses' of 'the physical body' FIRST. What happens THEN can be SEEN and HEARD 'through' and 'by' what IS 'expressed' or 'communicated'. IF what IS 'expressed/communicated' IS 'logical/reasonable' or 'illogical/unreasonable', or 'logical/unreasonable', or 'illogical/reasonable' is STILL YET TO BE DETERMINED, and AGREED UPON.

I argue that they have it backward.

Are 'your arguments' sound AND valid?

If not, then, REALLY, are they even worth SAYING and/or REPEATING here?

And, if they are, then NO once could refute them.

Also, what if EVERY perspective HAS TO BE 'subjective', and 'Reason/Logic' exists IN 'subjective views/perspectives',then 'Objectivity' is FOUND and SEEN through 'subjective views and perspectives', right?

I haven't heard any good arguments to claim that Logic is "subjective".

Well WHERE 'logic' exists is IN 'thought', itself, that is; until expressed through written or verbal communication, and ALL 'thought', itself, IS 'subjective', right?

As ALL 'thought' IS 'subjective' to 'what' 'the body' has and is 'experiencing', correct?

WHEN and HOW the 'subjective' BECOMES 'objective', then that JUST HAPPENS through and by A VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process.

Logic is presumed to be Objective, as are "Natural Laws", Laws of Nature.

'Logic', itself, may well be. BUT, have 'you' HEARD and/or SEEN some of the so-called and alleged 'logic' that comes OUT OF some of the 'posters' here?

Also, PRESUMPTIONS CAN and DO LEAD 'you' ASTRAY. So, it would be WELL ADVISED to LEAVE, or LEAVE 'them', 'by the wayside', as some might say.

What do 'you' MEAN by 'end of time'?

It's an expression to bolster my argument about Conservation of Energy and Motion/Force.

Okay. So, do ALL of 'your views' FIT IN TOGETHER PERFECTLY?

Existence is "balanced" or "at rest" unless energy is transferred.

But, 'Existence', Itself, IS PERFECTLY 'balanced' and/or 'at rest' ALWAYS, and 'energy' IS ALWAYS, ALSO.

Consciousness uses a lot of energy...rocks resting in crevices, do not.

Will 'you' ELABORATE ON/EXPLAIN what 'consciousness' IS, EXACTLY, and HOW that supposed and alleged 'thing', itself, could even USE ANY 'energy', let alone a LOT OF 'energy'?

And, what IS 'a LOT OF energy', anyway?

[Sculptor]

Here is where you make your first mistake.
Objectivity is not Consciousness, ss it has to exist beyond our consciousness.
We know about it through our subjective exerience, so we believe it exists, but it is not consciousness.

If humans are both subjects and have object-permanence, then the case can be made that humans are objects, as Trajik Logic has just laid-out.

And here is where you decend into your second major error.
Religions might pretend objectivity because they believe that their's is the one true religion.
It is not.

Actually it does, because we only have our perspective.

Religious people might think they have special access to the objective; they do not.
THis is at least one reason why they disagree so much and love to kill each other - because god is on their side.

Looking back - I wonder if your two errors are linked.
The first would seem to imply that beyind the world of human experience is a consciousness; and maybe this is why you feel so free to give religion some sort of special case? (your second error)

Yes, religions do make claims over the "Objective Realm" in order to bolster their presumed Authority/Truth/Rationale/Faith, etc.

It's not that they're a "special case", they're the main case. Major religions represent, what, 85% of humanity? That's a problem, if 85% of humans are flatly wrong...or right, about their "Objective" morality.

Yes, they do found their claims on an "Objective Consciousness", which is contradictory, because it confuses Subjectivity and Objectivity together, as-if they can be conflated or equivocated. They can't be. That's what I'm arguing against Trajik Logic right now.

If there's Object-Permanence...then what is "Subjectivity" except a type of false-reality that people delude themselves into?

I think what you missed in what I said was that whilst I agree that persons are objects; objects which persist after they are observed, that is not a warrant for saying that another person can necessarily have an objective view of any of them.
In fact we know from experience that whilst we can agree about the mundane facts about another person we each of us have a different view of them; sometimes the difference is subtle other times shockingly different.
So yeah Biden has white hair and Trump has what looks like a blond wig, but none of us would ever agree exactly about what they are. To be truly objective requires that sort of exactitude.
Generally what can be agreed to be objective facts are easy enough to establish. Trump did try to overturn the last election result is a FACT. What you might believe about justifications is subject to a range of prejudices such as loyalty to Republicanism, hero worship and cult thinking.
The court will decide whether or not Trump and his crime gang forged Elector Documents. They will use evidence to determine that. There will be an element of subjectivity as to whether that amounts to insurrection, and there will be an element of subjectivity when determining the level of punishment that he ought to receive.
But no matter how hard I try I cannot express this point without some degree of subjectivity. For example the phrase "crime gang" might be 100% accurate, since there were a group of them and they conspired to commit a crime. I could have used softer words. Magas would never use such a phrase.

I the last vid of Trump, by his own words he called the NY judge "hostile" to him. It is simply a fact that for most people that would be considered contempt of court. And when we learn that the reason he said that was because the judge told him to stop making remarks when other people's testimony was being heard.
So what are the perfect "objective" facts here?

[Trajk Logik]

I was never disagreeing with you in this regard. I am a realist but not a materialist.

I am looking for an explanation as to how you think that consciousness/life deserves this special property, "subjective" when the explanation you have provided thus far can be applied to things that are not conscious and not alive.

If humans have object-permanence, then we are Objects, in addition to what we call "Subjects"—so both Subject & Object.

You premised Reality on your own Subjectivity. This contradicts object-permanence through your own reasoning. You've repeatedly claimed that we only can know object-permanence first through the senses. But now you've stated that object-permanence does come about through empirical/logical/rational thought. Why does it matter how you, or babies, come about it, when it is already taken for given? It doesn't matter that object-permanence comes after your conscious-awareness is formed; because I argue, object-permanence represents any person, any baby, and Subject discovering something innate (some process/pattern/activity) about the universe, about Existence, that precedes Awareness, Perception, and Consciousness.

In other words, object-permanence is not an "Imagining" about the universe, it is a type of "waking up" as to the Nature of the Universe or Existence.

So once you've awakened...why not apply this newfound Rationality to everything else, not just your mother?

This means that it is The Subject, what you've agued is your Reality, that is the Exception to the rule, not the Norm. Your Subjective-Reality is the "rarity" of Nature, not the Object-Permanence. Or another argument...human consciousness is unique because of the Evolution required to "build" or "create" or "manifest" such a "Subjective-Reality". The Object-Permanence precedes Awareness.

Do you disagree?

No. I said...

We get at the causes by using our senses (empiricism) AND using logic (rationalism)

We are all born solipsists. After several months we empirically and logically deduce that our mothers still exist when they leave the room (object permanence). This is a conclusion that we all come to naturally as a result of our interactions with the world over time.

So I specifically stated that it requires BOTH senses and logic. I have also asserted that the dichotomy of empiricism vs rationalism is as false and the subject vs object distinction. Logical thinking is a manipulation, or processing, of sensory data. You cannot use one without the other.

And I was not using the example of object permanence to show that my mother is an object because that would be incompatible with what I have said previously. I was merely showing that we learn that our experience is not all there is. If object permanence is not innate, but something we have to learn, then it seems logical to say that we are born solipsists in that we are born assuming that our mind is all there is and anything only exists when it is experienced. Obtaining object permanence we become realists in understanding that our mind is not all there is and that there are events occurring beyond our awareness. But being a realist does not mean that I necessarily believe that things are objects. I have referred to them as relations, processes and information. We can also include the term events as everything is constantly changing. There are no objects - just changing relations or processes, or events, and they are separate from, and can exist even when not present in, the mind. Even idealists can be realists in that some realists, to avoid sliding into solipsism, believe that even though ideas are fundamental, ideas can exist separate from each other, but can still interact causally, like how any materialist might say how objects interact causally.

I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of what you have said. I think that we can agree that we are both realists. We both agree that there are events that occur beyond our awareness. I prefer to call my mother a type of event, process, relation, or information. You prefer to call her a subject and an object. The difference is that I see my terms as overlapping and complimentary. Your terms are the opposite. Subjective and objective are opposing terms and do not overlap or compliment each other, so I don't see how something like your mother can be two opposing things, kind of like being both single and married.

I have no use for the terms subjective and objective. I see them as a false dichotomy and have said this numerous times, yet you keep asserting that I am a "Subjectivist". You probably need to go back and read what I have written.

[Trajk Logik]

Does ANY who thinks or BELIEVES that 'objectivity' exists can be accessed through some 'thing' ELSE on than through 'Reason/Logic'?

Subjectivists (Trajik Logic) believe that it must be accessed through the Senses first, not Reason/Logic first.

I argue that they have it backward.

Again, I am not a "Subjectivist" (I have no idea what that is, or how you came to that conclusion given what I have said.

Again, I have not said that Senses come first before Reason/Logic. I have said that they are both required. You cannot have one without the other.

Tell me, when thinking logically about the world, what form does that take in your mind? What objects exist in your mind when thinking logically? How do you know when you are thinking logically if not by your mind forming some objects within it, and don't these objects possess shape, color, sound and/or feelings? Even logical symbolism takes the form of some scribbles in your mind and their relations.

It doesn't make any sense to talk about empirical knowledge and rational knowledge separately. Neurons are both sensory and rational. They receive information from the senses for the purpose of (logically) processing it to produce some behavior. Brains did not evolve without senses and senses did not evolve without brains. They both evolved together. Brains actually evolved from neural nets that were established in organisms like jellyfish and starfish, but that doesn't mean that these organisms did not use senses or logic in the way that they processed information from their environment to produce behavior. They did, just on a very basic, primitive level compared to human brains and senses.

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

The problem is resolved in understanding that there is no "outside". Our minds are real. They are real parts of the world. They cause things to happen in the world. So the world and our minds are part of the same stuff and can interact causally. We have access to anything if we use the right sensory device to access it. As I pointed out in my prior posts we have developed technology to access parts of reality that we cannot access with our senses. We have the potential to access anything and everything when we look in the right place at the right time with the right senses.

I define reality as all there is which includes minds. Actuality isn't needed. If Actuality is undifferentiated, then how and why do we perceive reality as differentiated. Your explanation seems to fall into the same dualistic trap Wiz finds themselves in. In separating our minds and knowledge from the rest of the world you create problems of how they interact and end up making minds and knowledge special in relation to the other natural processes without any reason to support this special status other than your own subjective need to make it special. Minds are not special. Making value judgements stems from our own subjective need to be special, but humans and their minds are not any more special that the ocean and its waves or the sun and its shine. If you really want to reach some level of objectivity then discard your values because in the "eyes" of the universe, you and your mind are not special, or separate from reality.

Consciousness -is- the act of Separation between Subject and Object!

Consciousness is the process of the Subject "becoming aware" of its own Distinction, as "not an object any longer", as alive and awake.

Per your own words about object-permanence the separation between objects is a priori any awareness of that separation so consciousness cannot be the act of separation when that separation exists prior. You could just as easily re-word that last sentence as, "Consciousness is the process of the Object "becoming aware" of its own Distinction, as "not separate from other objects", as alive and awake." and forget about the subject altogether, because the distinction between object and subject is non-sensical. I would then point you back to what I said about objects and then you will see that I both "object" and "subject" are of no use to me, and that we can get by in describing the world without using either of those terms.

[Trajk Logik]

I'll sum a few things up:

Trajik is a "Subjectivist-Realist".
I am an "Objectivist-Realist".

I'm more of a "Relation-Realist", or "Information-Realist". I have no idea what a "Subjective-Realist" is.

My argument is that Objectivity is "realer" than Subjectivity, which means that Objectivity is more real and Subjectivity is less real. I presume that Trajik will claim the opposite. Objectivity, to Trajik, is either less real (than Subjectivity) or simply not real at all. And there is "no reality" in which Objectivity can exist. This seems to be our dispute.

What is Objectivity that makes it "realer" than Subjectivity? Is it not true that your mind exists independent from my mind? Is it not true that your body exists independently of my body? Is it not the same for our minds relative to some chair or table, too? Our minds are not special and do not require this special label of subjectivity when they are no different in their independence, or separateness, than anything else relative to everything else.

My argument hinges on how Object-Permanence is understood and experienced by the human mind/body/subjectivity. It is *NOT* accessed through the senses, but through what Kant claimed is "Pure Reason". It is only logical, and perhaps not even empirical. Because it cannot validated nor verified through sensual experience. In other words, you cannot witness your mother shut the door between you and her, you no longer see her, but you "do see her". There is no subjective method, or experience, or rationale, that can possibly claim or even think/comprehend/imagine that "she's still there".

Could you have ever come to the realization that your mother exists when you are not seeing her without first seeing her and then over time recognizing her?

Consider Object-Permanence...explain it. Why does a baby or child begin to believe its mother is "still there" when unseen? Why do people believe in unseen, unexperienced things? I don't just mean the mother; I mean all things. It's not "enough" to have sensual experience, but the human mind goes further to ascertain unexperienced parts of the world. This is not only spatial, but temporal. Human beings want to know about what comes before and what comes after your Subjective, Conscious, Experience.

Simple. You have more than one sense. You can hear your mother when you cannot see her. If the mother you hear is the same as the mother you see then your mother can exist even when you cannot see her. And to explain how things in your environment change over time when you have no memory of changing it yourself, then there must be unseen events producing these changes. Object permanence requires both sensory data and the logical processing of that sensory data.

[Trajk Logik]

Yes, it appears I am the only one who had introduced "absolute" in reference to mind-independent.

It is very necessary when the relevant nuances has to be considered.

When p-realists claimed there are mind-independent things [or and reality] they assumed anti-p-realists in contrast believed things and reality are "dependent" on one's mind; as if the person's mind is creating reality and things on the go which is absurd.
This lead them to charge [mock] anti-p-realists with solipsism.

As stated, the point is anti-p-realists [mine=Kantian] i.e. Empirical Realism also believe in mind-independent things [reality], but not in the sense of the p-realists which is in the absolute sense without compromise.
This is why there is a need to qualify the p-realists' mind-independence as absolute, while that of the anti-p_realists are relative.

Not necessarily. Some materialist-realists wave the mind off as illusion, or assert that it is materialistic, or physical, like the rest of the world. So not all of them are independent absolutists in their view of the mind vs. the world. There is also the distinction of epistemological idealism vs ontological idealism with the former logically reducing to solipsism and the latter to an idealistic-realism. I lean towards the latter except that I don't see the mind as fundamental. Mind is a complex arrangement of information and information is fundamental. This is what allows the existence of other things that are not minds, or ideas, but are still related substantively and causally. So I reject both materialism and idealism as well as panpsychism and adopt a type of relationism/informationalism blend with Whitehead's process philosophy.

I like to use the term, "aboutness" instead of "externalness". I think it compliments the theme of everything being information. The contents of your mind have an aboutness to them in that they are informative. Colors and shapes inform you of various states of the world. They are not the states of the world unless we are talking about minds themselves, which are a part of the world. This is what it means to confuse the map with the territory - when we believe that the apple really is colored red rather than as you being informed that the apple is ripe.

My concept of "externalness" is quite distinct from "aboutness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness

About Aboutness
https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/About_Aboutness

The concept of 'aboutness' is more sophisticated than "externalness"

The sense of "externalness" in introduced is adapted from early stages of evolution of animals where every organism perceived foods and threats [humans and things] as physically external to their body [implied mind] with a gap of distance.
This is necessary and critical to facilitate basic survival.
This sense of externalness is basic and adaptive.

Since it was adapted from the very early stages of evolution, it "instinctualized" and an evolutionary default within the DNA of all living animals and still exists in modern humans.

My point is to highlight to p-realists that they have converted the above evolutionary default to a fundamentalistic ideology which they are not aware of, i.e. they are clinging to some very primal and primordial thinking.

I think I see what you mean in a way. Visual, auditory and tactile sensations have an extended feel to them. Objects appear and sound separate from the observer, as if they are a homunculus inside the skull and seeing and hearing objects "out there", apart from the body. My cat's purr emanates from her body. It sounds like it is "out there", apart, or external to me and inside her. I usually attribute this way of thinking about the mind as naive realism, as if the observer is seeing and hearing the world as it actually is, with colors and sounds being "external" to the observer. But science has shown us that colors and sounds are only properties of minds, and do no exist out in the world.

It logically follows that if colors and sounds are only part of the mind and not out in the world, then everything about how the world appears in the mind must also exist only in the mind. The extended part is also just information like colors, shapes and sounds. Sound just doesn't carry information about volume and pitch, but also distance and direction. The extended feeling of visual and auditory sensations is itself part of the information. Visual depth with the sensation of empty space and distance and location relative to the eyes is all part of the visual information we access.

Given the new understandings that science has provided in how we perceive the world, including why we experience visual "illusions" like bent straws in a glass of water, anyone that still clings the naive, or direct realist notions of mind are literally fooling themselves. Illusions are dispelled when we realize that we do not see objects, we see light and our minds construct objects using the information in the reflected light that reaches our eyes. Bent straws in water are what you expect to see given the nature of light.

Since colors do not exist out in the world then colors in the mind must inform us of some property that isn't color out in the world. Red apples are ripe apples. Red informs us of the state of the fruit we eat so that we don't get sick eating rotten apples. It logically follows that our senses inform us of states of the world and are not a clear window to the world. This is what it means for our sensations to possess an aboutness to them, in that they are not the objects themselves, but carry information about other processes apart from, but relative to us. So yes, the concept of aboutness is not like the instinctive view of the mind that you described, but comes about by incorporating the latest scientific explanations and what logically follows from that.

[seeds]

_______



_______