Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism

[Iwannaplato]

Further he's implying that the people who have disagreed with him here are disembodied realists............and THAT is not justified.

The dude would get further if he just started asking people what they believe.

Then he'd have to give up his false dichotomies. He'd also have to read what people write and try to understand it.
It's easier, it seems, just to run and find some box to throw their beliefs into and argue with that by cutting,pasting then posting things he hasn't read either.

[Flannel Jesus]

Further he's implying that the people who have disagreed with him here are disembodied realists............and THAT is not justified.

The dude would get further if he just started asking people what they believe.

Then he'd have to give up his false dichotomies. He'd also have to read what people write and try to understand it.
It's easier, it seems, just to run and find some box to throw their beliefs into and argue with that by cutting,pasting then posting things he hasn't read either.

The thing I don't get is why he does this so frequently. If we counted the threads where his argument is just "people who disagree with me all think like <this specific thing>", how many would there be? What's the appeal to threads like that? What's it supposed to accomplish? I don't get it.

[Flannel Jesus]

2. Those who oppose the above [1.], i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position [see OP]. i.e.

Disembodied Realism:
i. Mind: Viewed as separate and independent from the body, existing in a non-physical realm.
ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.
iv. Metaphors: Understood as purely linguistic constructs, not reflecting deeper truths about how we think and understand the world.
[/list]

The relevant point to my argument from the above is ii, iii & iv.

My recommendatin to you is, instead of repeatedly making threads telling p-realists what they all believe, why don't you find a p-realist and ask them if they believe these things? Try having a conversation with one.

I'm a p-realist. I'll answer you now, as if you asked me instead of told me:

i. no, I don't believe that.
ii. no, I don't believe that.
iii. no, I don't believe that.
iv. no, I don't believe that.

Hopefully this is helpful for you.

[Iwannaplato]

The thing I don't get is why he does this so frequently. If we counted the threads where his argument is just "people who disagree with me all think like <this specific thing>", how many would there be? What's the appeal to threads like that? What's it supposed to accomplish? I don't get it.

well, I'd be interested in his relationship with his father. (no, seriously )
I think the problem is that since he doesn't read carefully, doesn't quote from things he reads entirely, over-relies on AIs, he's not really getting feedback that he's not justified. I see confirmation bias - something seems to confirm his position, or attack his foes' positions and he conflates these two - and I'm guessing there's anchoring bias.

I think he lacks patience also.

[Atla]

Loopy??
I'll show why you are the loopy one.

There are two types of empiricism, i.e.
Empirical-Realism [antirealist] and
Transcendental-Empiricism p-realist.

Yes, some or many p-realists are empirically inclined [not necessary empiricists].
But they merely adopt the illusory Transcendental Empiricism.
Because they assume things out there are independent of their mind, what is empirical as observed is only restricted to their brain and mind.
As such, what is empirical is confined to their mind while the real thing is out there independent of their mind.
This empiricism is beyond [transcendental] what they deem as really out there, thus that is Transcendental Empiricism.
One extreme form of Transcendental Empiricism is naive realism where the empirical-mind-related thing is independent of the supposed real mind-independent thing out there.
This is where the Correspondence Theory of Truth and mirroring principle in invoked.

On the other hand, for the anti-p-realist [Kantian], their is Empirical Realism, what is out there as real is embodied, thus there is nothing beyond the mind, so not transcendental.
In this case, what is observed, i.e. empirical is the sole real thing, i.e. embodied and not related to something out there that is independent of the mind [iii].

Anyone who do not agree with me as an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] is a Transcendental "Empiricist". If insisted upon as an ideology, they are loopy.

Unhinged Kantian bullshit. Any good realist will take a third view outside your "empirical realism" and "transcendental empiricism" nonsense. Where the noumenon isn't 100% unknowable, just mostly unknowable.

I'm starting to wonder if those who see a connection between Kant's systematic, artificial detachment from reality and the rise of Nazi ideology, are onto something..

[Iwannaplato]

Cognitive dissonance: This is the state of mental discomfort that arises when a person holds two or more conflicting beliefs, values, or behaviors. To reduce this discomfort, the person may rationalize, deny, or ignore the evidence that contradicts their beliefs, or change their beliefs to align with the evidence

Confirmation bias: This is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. This can lead to ignoring or rejecting information that challenges or contradicts one’s beliefs, or interpreting it in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions

Backfire effect: This is the phenomenon where exposure to facts or arguments that challenge one’s beliefs can actually strengthen those beliefs, rather than weaken them. This can happen because the person may perceive the facts or arguments as a threat to their identity or worldview, and react defensively by rejecting or dismissing them, or by counter-arguing with more misinformation

Dunning-Kruger effect: This is the cognitive bias where people with low ability or knowledge in a domain tend to overestimate their competence or expertise, and fail to recognize their own limitations or errors. This can make them resistant to feedback or correction, and confident in their opinions or arguments, even when they are wrong or uninformed

[Atla]

Why did Kant argue that the noumenon is 100% unknowable?

Immanuel Kant argued that the noumenon, which he defined as the ultimate reality or the thing-in-itself, is 100% unknowable due to the limitations of human cognition. In his philosophical work, particularly in his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant distinguished between the phenomenal world (the world as it appears to us) and the noumenal world (the world as it is in itself).

Kant's central idea was that our knowledge is constrained by the structure of our own minds and the way we perceive and understand the world. He posited that human knowledge is shaped by the categories of understanding and the forms of intuition, which are inherent to our cognitive apparatus. These categories and forms structure our experience of the phenomenal world, but they also limit the scope of what we can know.

Kant argued that when we try to grasp the noumenon, we are attempting to go beyond the limits of our cognitive faculties. Since our knowledge is based on the way our minds organize sensory information, it cannot extend to things as they exist independently of our perceptual and conceptual frameworks. The noumenon, being beyond the reach of our cognitive structures, remains forever unknowable to us.

In essence, Kant asserted that we can only know phenomena—the appearances that are filtered through our mental faculties—and the ultimate nature of reality, the noumenon, lies beyond the reach of human knowledge. This position is often referred to as Kant's "epistemological agnosticism" regarding the noumenal realm.

Maybe one could get away with nonsense like this in the 18th century. But it's the 21st century and now it's clear that our senses exactly have the purpose of collecting some (a little) information about the noumenon, so that some knowledge about the noumenon can be attained within the brain/mind. 100% unknowable my ass.

Kant set up a magical dualism, dividing reality into phenomena and the noumenon, as if they were somehow two realities with different properties. But there is like zero reason to believe that they aren't continuous (with one another) parts of the same one reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

2. Those who oppose the above [1.], i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position [see OP]. i.e.

Disembodied Realism:
i. Mind: Viewed as separate and independent from the body, existing in a non-physical realm.
ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.
iv. Metaphors: Understood as purely linguistic constructs, not reflecting deeper truths about how we think and understand the world.
[/list]

The relevant point to my argument from the above is ii, iii & iv.

My recommendatin to you is, instead of repeatedly making threads telling p-realists what they all believe, why don't you find a p-realist and ask them if they believe these things? Try having a conversation with one.

I'm a p-realist. I'll answer you now, as if you asked me instead of told me:

i. no, I don't believe that.
ii. no, I don't believe that.
iii. no, I don't believe that.
iv. no, I don't believe that.

Hopefully this is helpful for you.

I mentioned specifically the p-realist beliefs are based on ii, iii & iv excluding i.

If you are a p-realist as defined below you will believe in ii & iii;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  Philosophical realism – .... is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

As for iv, that is a linguistic issue which is not influenced by what is going on in the brain and its evolutionary adaptations.

It is obvious the OP are key points from the mentioned book Philosophy in the Flesh, thus if the discussion were to get more serious, you'll need to get more familiar with the book. This is why I highlighted "Discuss" & "Views".

I have given an outline of my argument, it is not practical for me to give full details of my argument in an OP within the parameters of this forum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Further he's implying that the people who have disagreed with him here are disembodied realists............and THAT is not justified.

The dude would get further if he just started asking people what they believe.

I have already explained,
those who do not agree with my FSRK basis of reality belong the disembodied realism in terms of the disembodied-realism point ii, iii, iv.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Loopy??
I'll show why you are the loopy one.

There are two types of empiricism, i.e.
Empirical-Realism [antirealist] and
Transcendental-Empiricism p-realist.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. You are juxtaposing Antirealism, it seems, and Deleuze as the only possible empiricisms?

What is that I don't know what I am talking about?
You need to explain the connection with Deleuze.

The above differentiation is from Kant, i.e.
Empirical-Realism [antirealist] versus
Transcendental-Realism-Empiricism p-realist.

Can you prove Kant is wrong?

Yes, some or many p-realists are empirically inclined [not necessary empiricists].
But they merely adopt the illusory Transcendental Empiricism.

No, they don't, Yup, loopy. And many of them, like Locke and Hume couldn't possible since it didn't arrive until the 20th century.

I don't know what you are talking about. This is the reason I ignored some of the points you raised. Then you whine about it.
Hume was an empiricist, i.e. insisting empiricism is the only way to knowledge.
Some [or many] P-realists are empirically inclined, i.e. the believe in empiricism but they are p-realist because what is empirical represent an objective reality beyond what is empirical.

Because they assume things out there are independent of their mind, what is empirical as observed is only restricted to their brain and mind.

I understand now why Atla keeps saying you don't understand indirect realism.
You don't understand how realists use inference or that they directly connect what is experience to the objects.

What is so difficult with Indirect Realism?
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.-wiki

This aligned with what I stated above;
"Because they [p-realists] assume things out there are independent of their mind, what is empirical as observed is only restricted to their brain and mind [activities]."

Explain in the above context, how is that I don't understand.

One extreme form of Transcendental Empiricism is naive realism where the empirical-mind-related thing is independent of the supposed real mind-independent thing out there.

Jesus. You can, if you really strain yourself manage to try to reconcile transcendental empiricism and naive realism, but 1) they fit together very poorly and 2) whatever mish mash you create would not be stable or really either one of the two. And there you have your own contradiction.
There are only two types, and then we find there is an extreme form. So, everyone who does not agree with you is a naive realist. I mean, I am realizing how much irritation I have created for myself taking you as seriously as I have.

You just lump people together, create false dichotomies all to sharpen that ax you got to grind with some people here.

You are the confused one not me.

Naive realism is the tendency to believe our perception of the world reflects it exactly as it is, unbiased and unfiltered. We don't think our emotions, past experiences, or cultural identity affect the way we perceive the world and thus believe others see it in the same way as we do.

Indirect Realism [definition above] is different, i.e. they believe their perception is not direct but filtered via some conceptual framework.

I did not assert all those who do not agree with me are naive realists. You are confused.
Both indirect realists and naive realists are p-realists, i.e. they believe in a mind-independent external world, so they disagree with me an anti-p-realist.

Get it?

This is where the Correspondence Theory of Truth and mirroring principle in invoked.

On the other hand, for the anti-p-realist [Kantian], their is Empirical Realism, what is out there as real is embodied, thus there is nothing beyond the mind, so not transcendental.
In this case, what is observed, i.e. empirical is the sole real thing, i.e. embodied and not related to something out there that is independent of the mind [iii].

Yes, we've heard this a million times and your English makes it very confusing, but I am pretty sure I get it given how many times you have said it.

I don't believe it is the English but rather you are a p-realist such that inevitably you will have selective attention and cannot see the 500 pound gorilla I brought into the scene.
It is just like theists cannot understand or a blind to non-theists views, even if they are expert in English or even are scientists.

Anyone who do not agree with me as an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] is a Transcendental "Empiricist". If insisted upon as an ideology, they are loopy.

Yeah, right everyone who doesn't agree with you is a follower of Deleuze. There is only Deleuzes realist empiricism. And you don't even understand that one.

It's insulting have such undigested ideas thrown at one. It's disrespectful.

I am interested, Why bring Delueze into the picture?
Anyone who disagrees with me [an anti-p-realist] is a p-realist. That is logically valid and sound.
There are many types of p-realists, e.g. naive realist, indirect realist, disembodied realist, transcendental realist [empiricist], and the like.

But note, not empirical realist [Kantian] or embodied realist.

The hoo-hahs is because you are the confused one and do not understand the nuances.
You are perturbed with many things [then blame me] because there is much knowledge you need to fill up [if only you are capable of doing it].

[Veritas Aequitas]

The dude would get further if he just started asking people what they believe.

Then he'd have to give up his false dichotomies. He'd also have to read what people write and try to understand it.
It's easier, it seems, just to run and find some box to throw their beliefs into and argue with that by cutting,pasting then posting things he hasn't read either.

The thing I don't get is why he does this so frequently. If we counted the threads where his argument is just "people who disagree with me all think like <this specific thing>", how many would there be? What's the appeal to threads like that? What's it supposed to accomplish? I don't get it.

I have stated many times.
Why I discussed in this forum is purely for my own VERY selfish interests in refreshing what I have learned so far and triggered me to learn more.
As for others, it is, to each their own.

Why so many threads?
The basic rule of understanding problems and issues is to break them down into smaller [optimal] units.
Just imagine those thread with >500 pages, do you think it is easy to refer to the various issues [needles] there in those dumpster full of shit with few pieces of gems.
Do you understand what is optimality and efficiency?
Also, at this time specifically, the many threads I have raised for my own selfish reasons, in way keep helped to keep the forum seemingly active, if not, it would be very dead.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why did Kant argue that the noumenon is 100% unknowable?

Immanuel Kant argued that the noumenon, which he defined as the ultimate reality or the thing-in-itself, is 100% unknowable due to the limitations of human cognition. In his philosophical work, particularly in his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant distinguished between the phenomenal world (the world as it appears to us) and the noumenal world (the world as it is in itself).

Kant's central idea was that our knowledge is constrained by the structure of our own minds and the way we perceive and understand the world. He posited that human knowledge is shaped by the categories of understanding and the forms of intuition, which are inherent to our cognitive apparatus. These categories and forms structure our experience of the phenomenal world, but they also limit the scope of what we can know.

Kant argued that when we try to grasp the noumenon, we are attempting to go beyond the limits of our cognitive faculties. Since our knowledge is based on the way our minds organize sensory information, it cannot extend to things as they exist independently of our perceptual and conceptual frameworks. The noumenon, being beyond the reach of our cognitive structures, remains forever unknowable to us.

In essence, Kant asserted that we can only know phenomena—the appearances that are filtered through our mental faculties—and the ultimate nature of reality, the noumenon, lies beyond the reach of human knowledge. This position is often referred to as Kant's "epistemological agnosticism" regarding the noumenal realm.

Maybe one could get away with nonsense like this in the 18th century. But it's the 21st century and now it's clear that our senses exactly have the purpose of collecting some (a little) information about the noumenon, so that some knowledge about the noumenon can be attained within the brain/mind. 100% unknowable my ass.

Kant set up a magical dualism, dividing reality into phenomena and the noumenon, as if they were somehow two realities with different properties. But there is like zero reason to believe that they aren't continuous (with one another) parts of the same one reality.

You are countering from ignorance of Kant's argument. Go read the CPR [at least 20x and preferably more] to only to understand [not agree] Kant before you critique Kant. This is a very fair call.

ChatGpt stated the noumenon is 100% unknowable.
In the CPR, Kant alluded further it is stupid for one trying to know the unknowable like you are trying to do.
It is a psychological compulsion for a need to 'know' the 'unknowable'.

What our five senses are capable of is crude, limited and deceptive. Do you know that?

You need to understand the full range of the history and evolution of Philosophy to understand what you are ignorant of.

But there is like zero reason to believe that they aren't continuous (with one another) parts of the same one reality.

This arrogance and certainty sound very foolish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes from Philosophy in the Flesh

The Embodied Realism ... is anticipated by two of our greatest philosophers of the embodied mind, John Dewey and Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Dewey (C2, 1922, 1925) focused on the whole complex circuit of organism environment interactions that makes up our experience, and he showed how experience is at once bodily, social, intellectual, and emotional.
Merleau-Ponty (C2, 1962) argued that "subjects" and "objects" are not independent entities, but instead arise from a background, or "horizon," of fluid, integrated experience on which we impose the concepts "subjective" and "objective.” Chapter 7.

Philosophical Realism argued "subjects" are absolutely independent of the objects.
Therefore Embodied Realism cannot be philosophical realism.

[Atla]

Why did Kant argue that the noumenon is 100% unknowable?

Immanuel Kant argued that the noumenon, which he defined as the ultimate reality or the thing-in-itself, is 100% unknowable due to the limitations of human cognition. In his philosophical work, particularly in his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant distinguished between the phenomenal world (the world as it appears to us) and the noumenal world (the world as it is in itself).

Kant's central idea was that our knowledge is constrained by the structure of our own minds and the way we perceive and understand the world. He posited that human knowledge is shaped by the categories of understanding and the forms of intuition, which are inherent to our cognitive apparatus. These categories and forms structure our experience of the phenomenal world, but they also limit the scope of what we can know.

Kant argued that when we try to grasp the noumenon, we are attempting to go beyond the limits of our cognitive faculties. Since our knowledge is based on the way our minds organize sensory information, it cannot extend to things as they exist independently of our perceptual and conceptual frameworks. The noumenon, being beyond the reach of our cognitive structures, remains forever unknowable to us.

In essence, Kant asserted that we can only know phenomena—the appearances that are filtered through our mental faculties—and the ultimate nature of reality, the noumenon, lies beyond the reach of human knowledge. This position is often referred to as Kant's "epistemological agnosticism" regarding the noumenal realm.

Maybe one could get away with nonsense like this in the 18th century. But it's the 21st century and now it's clear that our senses exactly have the purpose of collecting some (a little) information about the noumenon, so that some knowledge about the noumenon can be attained within the brain/mind. 100% unknowable my ass.

Kant set up a magical dualism, dividing reality into phenomena and the noumenon, as if they were somehow two realities with different properties. But there is like zero reason to believe that they aren't continuous (with one another) parts of the same one reality.

You are countering from ignorance of Kant's argument. Go read the CPR [at least 20x and preferably more] to only to understand [not agree] Kant before you critique Kant. This is a very fair call.

ChatGpt stated the noumenon is 100% unknowable.
In the CPR, Kant alluded further it is stupid for one trying to know the unknowable like you are trying to do.
It is a psychological compulsion for a need to 'know' the 'unknowable'.

What our five senses are capable of is crude, limited and deceptive. Do you know that?

You need to understand the full range of the history and evolution of Philosophy to understand what you are ignorant of.

But there is like zero reason to believe that they aren't continuous (with one another) parts of the same one reality.

This arrogance and certainty sound very foolish.

Only an idiot will still believe in the 21st century that this 100% unknowable noumenon is a sane idea. You lost, along with your Kant. Deal with it.

What our five senses are capable of is crude, limited and deceptive. Do you know that?

Yes, unlike you. Viewing them as crude and limited, calling them senses to begin with, implies that their purpose is to collect crude, limited information from the noumenon, so the noumenon isn't 100% unknowable, just mostly unknowable.

Kant bet on the 100% unknowable noumenon. And tried to support this nonsense with ideas such as mental-only space and time (refuted by Einsteinian spacetime) or only one kind of mental-geometry (refuted by non-Euclidean geometries) etc.

So what. You can read a bad argument 20 times and it's still a bad argument.

[Flannel Jesus]

Further he's implying that the people who have disagreed with him here are disembodied realists............and THAT is not justified.

The dude would get further if he just started asking people what they believe.

I have already explained,
those who do not agree with my FSRK basis of reality belong the disembodied realism in terms of the disembodied-realism point ii, iii, iv.

Ok, and it's been explained to you that you're incorrect. You don't really get to decide other people's beliefs for them, are you aware of that?

If you reject that, then you must believe pedophilia is acceptable, and that child molestation should not be punished.

To put it in terms you understand,

If someone believes all the things VA believes, then they also believe

i. Child molestation should not be punished
ii. It should actually be encouraged

It must be true, because I've made a numbered list like you. Now we are both respectable intellectuals making unassailable points with our numbered lists telling other people what they believe.