Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 am The traditional metaphysics relates to Substance Theory;

Note the 'physics' in 'meta-physics' which thus was related to Natural Science.
The claim of traditional metaphysics is there is the real thing-in-itself [substance theory] that underlies whatever is Physics. This is what you are doing i.e. by imputing realism into science.
That's completely pointless to the discussion, which is about whether or not Kant wanted to raise metaphysics to the level of a science, as science was understood at the end of the 18th century. The answer is yes, as supported by many references I have provided. This can certainly imply and be consistent with a reform of metaphysics that rejects traditional metaphysics.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 am As I had stated Kant used the term 'Science' as a very loose term in this case.
In the same edition of the Prolegomena, Hatfield explains what the term science meant for Kant and his contemporaries:
In the eighteenth century the German word Wissenschaft, as well as the French, Latin,Italian, and English cognates for “science,” were understood to mean any systematic body of knowledge, usually with the implication that it would be organized around first principles from which the rest of the body of knowledge might be derived (more or less rigorously). Mathematics, and especially Euclid’s geometry, was a model for how “scientific” expositions of knowledge should be organized. Disciplines as diverse as mathematics, metaphysics, and theology were all called “sciences.” Hence, it was entirely normal for Kant to speak of metaphysics as a science.
I believe there is no issue except in context.

For me, I am speaking in relation to the present circumstance, for to merely state 'metaphysics can be a science' without qualification would be very misleading.

Point is even for Kant, we have to qualify, i.e. metaphysics is possible as a "science" but only effective for the Practical & Morality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 am The actual Miss Universe (a person-in-itself) is like the claim of her having a soul that survives physical death, which is an illusion.
Nonsense. That would put any materialist and realist as a believer in souls, which is preposterous.
In a way, that would be the point, materialists and realists believe in something equivalent to a soul [the actual person-in-itself], perhaps one that is destined for either heaven or hell.

This is how Allison stated something like, materialists and realists are "theocentric" in trying to be like a God i.e. seeing things with a God's-eye-view that real things are independent.
In reality there is no actual person-in-itself.
There is however the actual empirical person which one can feel, pinch, see in the mirror and see in other empirical selves.
Such an empirical person disappear upon physical death.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

double posting
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am I agree ad hominem refer to remarks on the person but I believe this is more applicable to formal arguments and debates, not necessary in a dialogue like we are having in this forum.
Argumentative fallacies can appear in formal and informal debates. There's a current debate in this thread and you threw in one of such fallacies.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am In this case I am not responding to an argument with the various remarks on your state; this are actual side remarks and has nothing to do with the argument per se.
Exactly. You strayed from the point being argued and presented that as a response to an argument. That's a classical fallacy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am How I used the term 'vulgar' in this case is because I have read very widely and noted many notable philosophers used the term effectively where they compare the masses. I believe it is appropriate for me state that you are ignorant in this case [especially with your counter remarks above], for if you have read widely you would have come across the use this term 'vulgar' and notable philosophers chiding the masses.
And this is a fallacy of generalization. While it may be possible that some philosophers behave snobbishly and disdainful to the masses, it is certainly not true that all philosophers do. And if were true that some of the snobbish and disdainful philosopher were also notable philosophers, it certainly would not be true that all notable philosophers, nor most notable philosophers, are snobbish and disdainful by nature.

The next flaw in your argument to justify your previous Ad Hominem argument is to imply that you're somehow entitled to employ the same judgement of "many notable philosophers", just because of your heartfelt belief that you have "read very widely", or perhaps, more than those you wish to disparage in a debate, an assessment that cannot have obviously any basis on a rational measurement, and can only come from irrational delusions of grandeur, the type that occupies much of the concerns of the wannabe intellectual, unlike the true, serious intellectuals, such as the notable philosophers, or most philosophers in general.
I am not associating myself with notable philosophers, but it is very rational to make those 'side' critiques based on what you [others] have posted.
What is not acceptable is if one were to make vulgar [current use], other contemptible and scornful remarks.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am Btw, the onus is on you to provide the arguments re the OP, not me.

Other than insisting the 'moon' pre-dated humans [failed argument] you have not provided any solid arguments to justify your claims that there is a real underlying objective reality to what-appears.
I have provided more than enough arguments, for which you're still pending a proper counterargument. One among the main points to address is that whenever you wish to deny the proofs of a real underlying objective reality, you are forced to reject science. Since that does not make your position look very good, you have to devise a workaround for taking out the realism from modern science, which is still the same as denying it altogether.
I believe I have already countered this in many posts.
Anyway I have raised a separate OP to focus on this;

Is P. 'Realism' Imperative for Science?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33163
Another problem you have not being able to solve is the existence of other subjects (real subjects-in-themselves independent of yourself). When you deny their existence as objects-in-themselves, you have denied the very basis of the cognitive apparatus that supposedly Kant's TI wishes to explain, and yet you and Kant make the claim that this cognitive apparatus is universal to all subject beings, even though they cannot exist as real subjects-in-themselves independent of Kant (or yourself).
I have already countered the above point.

As I had posted earlier, there is a difference between,
1. -the person-in-itself leading to the idea of a soul.
2. -the empirical self.

I deny 1 but not 2.

One of the central element of Kant's CPR is the empirical self, i.e. the "I Think" that he differentiated from the "I AM" [person-in-itself]. This is dealt within his concept of 'Apperception' which is very complex. Are you even aware of this?

Note this;
Transcendental Apperception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcend ... perception
"One consequence of Kant's notion of transcendental apperception is that the "self" [the person] is only ever encountered as appearance, NEVER as it is in itself."

I have also raise a separate OP for the above Point.
A Kantian Person is NEVER a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33164
Suggest you provide the relevant references therein to support your point.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am You are referring to one scientists only??
No, I'm referring to a particular famous scientist, science communicator and philosopher that represents mainstream science, sort of a Neil deGrasse Tysson or Carl Sagan. One cannot oppose their views without opposing mainstream scientific views.
As i had stated or implied there are many scientists who accept 'realism' notable Einstein but there are others who don't.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am Note the term 'assumption' above which is typical of many scientists but not all.
To rely on 'assumptions' to ground your argument is merely a bottomless empty vessel.
As I explained before, the nice thing about science is that it goes for the practical examination and confirmation of such assumptions. The success of science lies in its methods.
I am not disputing the success of science depending on its method.
But I have countered, scientific methods are constructed by human scientists.
Therefore scientific truths cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Meanwhile you insist there is an objective reality corresponding to what scientific truths are about.
But this objective reality is merely assumed.

If you believe 'assumptions' has currency, then theism [and other pseudo-sciences] is also true because theists assumed God exists.

So ultimately what you have are merely reliable scientific truths and NEVER a realization of that supposed objective reality which you are assuming to exists.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am Note this:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180



He is not the only Physicist who admit to the above point; there are many other Physicists and neuroscientists, cognitive-neuroscientists who expressed the same point.
Whatever it was, "video unavailable".
Here is a working link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:59 am That's completely pointless to the discussion, which is about whether or not Kant wanted to raise metaphysics to the level of a science, as science was understood at the end of the 18th century. The answer is yes, as supported by many references I have provided. This can certainly imply and be consistent with a reform of metaphysics that rejects traditional metaphysics.
I believe there is no issue except in context.

For me, I am speaking in relation to the present circumstance, for to merely state 'metaphysics can be a science' without qualification would be very misleading.

Point is even for Kant, we have to qualify, i.e. metaphysics is possible as a "science" but only effective for the Practical & Morality.
There's no other context in discussion but the times of Kant and his project in relation to metaphysics in the 18th century. I have provided now enough references as to make clear that he thought metaphysics as a philosophical discipline was possible and could be reformed to become a proper science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:59 am Nonsense. That would put any materialist and realist as a believer in souls, which is preposterous.
In a way, that would be the point, materialists and realists believe in something equivalent to a soul [the actual person-in-itself], perhaps one that is destined for either heaven or hell.
An additional discharge of nonsense, clearly a straw man fallacy against materialists and realists. The funny part is that idealists are the ones with the natural tendency to posit immaterial substances like a soul, aka disembodied consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am This is how Allison stated something like, materialists and realists are "theocentric" in trying to be like a God i.e. seeing things with a God's-eye-view that real things are independent.
The problem for Allison and whoever supports that view is that he sees materialists and realists only in the sense of cognizing subjects. Modern materialists and realists don't need to claim that they have direct cognition of how things are in themselves, but they certainly will assert that one can get to know how they are in themselves indirectly. The evidence shows that there is an objective, mind-independent reality, which is just partially represented in the common sense, pretheoretical view produced with basic cognition. No "God's eye view" needed, but human reasoning guided by reliable methods of inquiry.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am In reality there is no actual person-in-itself.
There is however the actual empirical person which one can feel, pinch, see in the mirror and see in other empirical selves.
Such an empirical person disappear upon physical death.
This is the usual confusion of terms that make such description a complete mess. The supposed distinction between the "actual person" and the "empirical person" is that the latter one refers not to an ontological entity, but the experience a theoeretical entity would have, even though the actual entity cannot exist. So it is the experience of a theoretical entity without the entity, which nevertheless includes the experience of life and death of such entity, all reduced to pure illusion, because the only real thing is the experience itself and supposedly, the conditions for there being any experience at all. That is your absurd proposition. And then we are told the conditions for there being an experience reside a priori in all the cognizing entities, even though these entities actually don't exist. Clever.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am I am not associating myself with notable philosophers, but it is very rational to make those 'side' critiques based on what you [others] have posted.
What is not acceptable is if one were to make vulgar [current use], other contemptible and scornful remarks.
That's a very late disclaimer at this time and an obvious contradiction of your statements, since you clearly associated your Ad Hominem remarks with notable philosophers as a way to legitimize them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am I have already countered the above point.

As I had posted earlier, there is a difference between,
1. -the person-in-itself leading to the idea of a soul.
2. -the empirical self.

I deny 1 but not 2.
I have already refuted your counterargument. First, the problematic implications of the supposed distinction between the "actual subject" and the "empirical subject" (see previous post in this thread). Secondly, there's no logical argument that connects the notion of a person-in-itself with the idea of a soul, not for a materialist, not for a realist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am One of the central element of Kant's CPR is the empirical self, i.e. the "I Think" that he differentiated from the "I AM" [person-in-itself]. This is dealt within his concept of 'Apperception' which is very complex. Are you even aware of this?

Note this;
Transcendental Apperception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcend ... perception
"One consequence of Kant's notion of transcendental apperception is that the "self" [the person] is only ever encountered as appearance, NEVER as it is in itself."
Quite a problematic concept, as I have explained.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am As i had stated or implied there are many scientists who accept 'realism' notable Einstein but there are others who don't.
That's not the point: there are many professional scientists that believe in a lot of woo nonsense, such as Intelligent Design advocates, ESP advocates, etc. The point is what is the mainstream, conventional view of modern science, and in that case a well-known science and philosophy communicator can exemplify what the current view is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am I am not disputing the success of science depending on its method.
But I have countered, scientific methods are constructed by human scientists.
Therefore scientific truths cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Only human knowledge is not absolutely independent of human conditions, which does not imply that what is known is not absolutely independent of human conditions. Human knowledge allows us to be aware of the existence of dinosaurs millions of year before humans appeared on the scene, so their existence is independent of human conditions, even though our knowledge of that independence is conditioned by our methods of investigating reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am
If you believe 'assumptions' has currency, then theism [and other pseudo-sciences] is also true because theists assumed God exists.
Assumptions are not the problem. The lack of truth in theism lies in the impossibility of providing justified belief deductively and inductively. Not only it cannot bring its objects to an empirical domain, but the very ontological definition of its objects does not allow them to be accesible to that empirical domain, unlike the objects of common experience, ontologically immersed in the same world as the subjects that perceive them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am Here is a working link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
The same problem of always: the unjustified jump from "this spooky behavior of particles at the quantum level that we don't understand" to "this spooky behavior of particles is transferible to the macro world where the Moon seems to exist" and therefore, "the Moon might not exist". An unwarranted nonsensical interpretation with no actual empirical basis.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:59 am That's completely pointless to the discussion, which is about whether or not Kant wanted to raise metaphysics to the level of a science, as science was understood at the end of the 18th century. The answer is yes, as supported by many references I have provided. This can certainly imply and be consistent with a reform of metaphysics that rejects traditional metaphysics.
I believe there is no issue except in context.

For me, I am speaking in relation to the present circumstance, for to merely state 'metaphysics can be a science' without qualification would be very misleading.

Point is even for Kant, we have to qualify, i.e. metaphysics is possible as a "science" but only effective for the Practical & Morality.
There's no other context in discussion but the times of Kant and his project in relation to metaphysics in the 18th century. I have provided now enough references as to make clear that he thought metaphysics as a philosophical discipline was possible and could be reformed to become a proper science.
Note what was "proper-science" to Kant was his own definition which not everyone in the 18th century accepted.

Note the following;
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/302356099.pdf
Abstract: The paper analyses the definition of science as an architectonic unity,
which Kant gives in the Architectonic of Pure Reason. I will show how this definition is problematic, insofar as it is affected by the various ways in which the relationship of reason to ends is discussed in this chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason.
Gabriele Gava
Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason
Kant’s conception of proper science
Hein van den Berg
Abstract Kant is well known for his restrictive conception of proper science. In the
present paper I will try to explain why Kant adopted this conception.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 9665-y.pdf
Thus Kant's conception of what is Science-proper is contentious.

The only conclusion one can arrive at is,
it is only to Kant in his own definition that "Metaphysics is acceptable as a Science" but only if it is applicable to Morality, ethics and the Practical.

Metaphysics was and is never Science-proper in essence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:59 am Nonsense. That would put any materialist and realist as a believer in souls, which is preposterous.
In a way, that would be the point, materialists and realists believe in something equivalent to a soul [the actual person-in-itself], perhaps one that is destined for either heaven or hell.
An additional discharge of nonsense, clearly a straw man fallacy against materialists and realists. The funny part is that idealists are the ones with the natural tendency to posit immaterial substances like a soul, aka disembodied consciousness.
Your hasty generalization is fallacious.
Me as in Empirical Idealism do not agree with that.

My point still stand, materialists and realists believe in something equivalent to a soul [the actual person-in-itself] but those who are non-theists may not believe in a soul per se.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am This is how Allison stated something like, materialists and realists are "theocentric" in trying to be like a God i.e. seeing things with a God's-eye-view that real things are independent.
The problem for Allison and whoever supports that view is that he sees materialists and realists only in the sense of cognizing subjects. Modern materialists and realists don't need to claim that they have direct cognition of how things are in themselves, but they certainly will assert that one can get to know how they are in themselves indirectly. The evidence shows that there is an objective, mind-independent reality, which is just partially represented in the common sense, pretheoretical view produced with basic cognition. No "God's eye view" needed, but human reasoning guided by reliable methods of inquiry.
You still don't get it.

Modern materialists and realists do not have direct cognition of subjects-in-themselves like naive realists, but they ASSUMED there is a corresponding supposed-subject-in-itself.

This is why Meno's Paradox is applicable, if you will never ever know [impossible to have direct cognition] of the supposed-in-itself, how can you know there is a really real subject-in-itself?

I supposed you are relying on Science as the most credible and reliable method of inquiry, but as I have argued Science merely ASSUMED there is a supposed thing-in-itself.

Note, many scientific theories which were once accepted as true and representing its respective thing-in-itself had been abandoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... in_science
Thus in general, the principle what is the thing-in-itself is not critical to Science, otherwise no scientific theories would have been abandoned totally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:03 am In reality there is no actual person-in-itself.
There is however the actual empirical person which one can feel, pinch, see in the mirror and see in other empirical selves.
Such an empirical person disappear upon physical death.
This is the usual confusion of terms that make such description a complete mess. The supposed distinction between the "actual person" and the "empirical person" is that the latter one refers not to an ontological entity, but the experience a theoeretical entity would have, even though the actual entity cannot exist.

So it is the experience of a theoretical entity without the entity, which nevertheless includes the experience of life and death of such entity, all reduced to pure illusion, because the only real thing is the experience itself and supposedly, the conditions for there being any experience at all. That is your absurd proposition.
And then we are told the conditions for there being an experience reside a priori in all the cognizing entities, even though these entities actually don't exist. Clever.
Why is it absurd when I am presenting direct evidence of what is the self?
The "empirical" person is not a "theoretical entity" but based on something that is real and supported by empirical evidences.

Note Hume's view of the self;
  • Hume also claims that we never directly apprehend the self. Unlike Descartes, he concludes from this that there is no substantial self.
    In a famous passage, Hume uses introspective awareness to show that the self is a non-substantial “bundle” of perceptions.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self ... ement.html
Meanwhile your supposed ontological entity is absurd i.e. can never ever be cognized but merely assumed from empirical evidences based on reliable methods of enquiry.
This is the basis for theists to extend to a believe in a soul that survives physical death of the empirical self.

Btw, the empirical self and any real self will experience life, BUT never death at all.
Again this is what the theists will believe, i.e. they will experience physical death and from there will be transmitted to heaven or hell.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am I have already countered the above point.

As I had posted earlier, there is a difference between,
1. -the person-in-itself leading to the idea of a soul.
2. -the empirical self.

I deny 1 but not 2.
I have already refuted your counterargument. First, the problematic implications of the supposed distinction between the "actual subject" and the "empirical subject" (see previous post in this thread). Secondly, there's no logical argument that connects the notion of a person-in-itself with the idea of a soul, not for a materialist, not for a realist.
Not so fast, note my subsequent counters.

Similarly there is no logical argument for you [realist] to connect a notion of a person-in-itself to the real empirical self. You are not providing any argument but merely ASSUMED a supposedly person-in-itself which the OP is awaiting you to provide sound arguments to justify your claim.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am One of the central element of Kant's CPR is the empirical self, i.e. the "I Think" that he differentiated from the "I AM" [person-in-itself]. This is dealt within his concept of 'Apperception' which is very complex. Are you even aware of this?

Note this;
Transcendental Apperception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcend ... perception
"One consequence of Kant's notion of transcendental apperception is that the "self" [the person] is only ever encountered as appearance, NEVER as it is in itself."
Quite a problematic concept, as I have explained.
Note my counters to your groundless "explanations."
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am As i had stated or implied there are many scientists who accept 'realism' notable Einstein but there are others who don't.
That's not the point: there are many professional scientists that believe in a lot of woo nonsense, such as Intelligent Design advocates, ESP advocates, etc. The point is what is the mainstream, conventional view of modern science, and in that case a well-known science and philosophy communicator can exemplify what the current view is.
You need to note a person can wear many hats.
If a person [even a notable scientist] believe in woo woo nonsense, at that point and on that issue, there is no way he is wearing the scientific hat.
A professional scientist in only qualified to his scientific work which must comply with the requirements of the scientific framework and methods.
As I had stated, the critical requirements of Science do not include realism, i.e. it is optional and indifferent to modern Science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am I am not disputing the success of science depending on its method.
But I have countered, scientific methods are constructed by human scientists.
Therefore scientific truths cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Only human knowledge is not absolutely independent of human conditions, which does not imply that what is known is not absolutely independent of human conditions. Human knowledge allows us to be aware of the existence of dinosaurs millions of year before humans appeared on the scene, so their existence is independent of human conditions, even though our knowledge of that independence is conditioned by our methods of investigating reality.
Note again, I am not denying dinosaurs did not exist before human from the conventional perspective based on the concept of time, existence, matter, etc.

Whether you refer to dinosaurs, the moon and the likes, ultimately these supposedly and apparently "independent" entities cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

In order to arrive at the judgment, "dinosaurs, the moon and the likes" pre-existed before humans, that judgment you will note is grounded on human conditioned concepts of time, matter, existence, etc.
Therefore 'that dinosaurs existed before humans' cannot be absolutely independent of human conditions.

Your problem as I had insisted is you are stuck in the Transcendental Realist dogma and thus unable to shift perspective just like Guyer and the likes on Kantian issues.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am
If you believe 'assumptions' has currency, then theism [and other pseudo-sciences] is also true because theists assumed God exists.
Assumptions are not the problem. The lack of truth in theism lies in the impossibility of providing justified belief deductively and inductively. Not only it cannot bring its objects to an empirical domain, but the very ontological definition of its objects does not allow them to be accesible to that empirical domain, unlike the objects of common experience, ontologically immersed in the same world as the subjects that perceive them.
You are very lost if you think "assumptions" are not a problem in restricting truths.
Note the typical "ass_u_me".

Theism is inductive since 90% of the world population of 7+ billion are theists, and you are right, theism cannot bring their objects within the empirical world.

But .. note, your person-it-itself by its ontological definition is also not in the empirical domain as well. Just as theists speculate their God from empirical evidence of the Universe and things, you are also speculating the ontological self from the evidence empirical self. See the similarity?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:35 am Here is a working link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
The same problem of always: the unjustified jump from "this spooky behavior of particles at the quantum level that we don't understand" to "this spooky behavior of particles is transferible to the macro world where the Moon seems to exist" and therefore, "the Moon might not exist". An unwarranted nonsensical interpretation with no actual empirical basis.
Btw, AL-Khalili is highly reputable Physicist and you [layperson] condemned his views?
As I had stated you need to brush up and keep up with on modern science.
Advocate
Posts: 2658
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

The answer is metaphysical/epistemological. We have an ongoing experience Of which we access through our senses and continuously replicates. That's what the word reality refers to. Languages are descriptive of our experience, not Platonic forms. The difference between your senses and your other experiences Is the evidence.

If you know you have an inner and outer experience, you've proven it to yourself. The inner experience is a filtered version of *whatever you want to call it, i chose Actuality*. Your embodiment is as a part of a larger whole, even if it's solipcistic or delusional, by way of experience itself.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:29 am There's no other context in discussion but the times of Kant and his project in relation to metaphysics in the 18th century. I have provided now enough references as to make clear that he thought metaphysics as a philosophical discipline was possible and could be reformed to become a proper science.
Note what was "proper-science" to Kant was his own definition which not everyone in the 18th century accepted.

Note the following;
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/302356099.pdf
Abstract: The paper analyses the definition of science as an architectonic unity,
which Kant gives in the Architectonic of Pure Reason. I will show how this definition is problematic, insofar as it is affected by the various ways in which the relationship of reason to ends is discussed in this chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason.
Gabriele Gava
Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason
The paper submitted only shows that Kant's definition of science, just the same as many of the concepts he develops in the CPR, is problematic and full of contradictions. In any case, this doesn't go to the point of whether he wanted to raise metaphysics to the level of a science or not, or more importantly, whether he thought a scientific discipline of metaphysics is possible or not. In fact, the paper suggests, as all the other references I provided, that he thought it was possible. Note what this paragraph entails:
In order to account for these problems concerning Kant’s account of science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason, it is useful to consider together the different aims that he sought to accomplish in this relatively short chapter of the first Critique. First of all, Kant here gives an outline of the metaphysical system he plans to build, clarifying the place of the first Critique within this edifice. Moreover, he further develops some thoughts concerning the relationship between theoretical and practical philosophy, introduced in the Canon of Pure Reason, and he presents a cosmic concept of philosophy that gives priority to the practical. He also gives a teleological account of science as a goal-directed activity, according to which systematicity is an essential character of science.


It would be kind of strange that someone who rejected metaphysics altogether, wanted to outline a metaphysical system himself, don't you think?

Also note this from another Kantian scholar:
Stanford philosopher strengthens Kant's connection to natural science and Newton
As one example, Friedman lays out an argument that Kant viewed Newton’s theory of universal gravitation as “the only proper natural science” for which Kant hoped to provide a metaphysical foundation. In this context, Kant needed a framework that would let him conceptually reduce all motion and rest to absolute space. Absolute space defines a privileged, immovable frame of reference for the moving bodies (such as planets) that occupy it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am Your hasty generalization is fallacious.
Me as in Empirical Idealism do not agree with that.

My point still stand, materialists and realists believe in something equivalent to a soul [the actual person-in-itself] but those who are non-theists may not believe in a soul per se.
Without any generalization whatsoever, we can easily identify you as the proponent (perhaps implicitly, while not explicitly) of immaterial substances like a soul, aka disembodied consciousness. You reject actual material bodies in themselves as carriers of consciousness, but nevertheless you stick to the reality of conscious experience and non-substantial human entities. The difference between that, disembodied consciousness and souls is nothing. That's what unites you and all the rest of idealists.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am You still don't get it.

Modern materialists and realists do not have direct cognition of subjects-in-themselves like naive realists, but they ASSUMED there is a corresponding supposed-subject-in-itself.

This is why Meno's Paradox is applicable, if you will never ever know [impossible to have direct cognition] of the supposed-in-itself, how can you know there is a really real subject-in-itself?

I supposed you are relying on Science as the most credible and reliable method of inquiry, but as I have argued Science merely ASSUMED there is a supposed thing-in-itself.
You're the one still not getting it. All knowledge frameworks rely on some assumptions at its base, but this in itself is not a discrediting feature, unless those assumptions remained purely theoretical. Materialism predated modern science and while it was just the product of pure reflection, as in Greek philosophy, it was just another theory clashing with other doctrines in the field of metaphysics. Materialist ontology, however, gained traction and became the inseparable companion of modern science because of the particular methodological features introduced by scientific practice, which allowed for a deepest and more reliable understanding of the real features of the world, much more than metaphysics alone could ever imagine. Thus, the crisis in philosophy and religion that came about after the contributions of Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc., a crisis that set up the conditions for Kant's project to save metaphysics. Unfortunately for him, idealism is not fit to be a companion of modern science, they are not compatible.

Meno's paradox, again, is ridiculous sophistry, with no value to add to a serious philosophical discussion.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am Note, many scientific theories which were once accepted as true and representing its respective thing-in-itself had been abandoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... in_science
Thus in general, the principle what is the thing-in-itself is not critical to Science, otherwise no scientific theories would have been abandoned totally.
A good amount of the listed superseded theories belong to the earlier days of modern science and hardly represent the state of scientific research since the 20th century. In any case, just the fact that they were discarded by scientific practice itself, shows that it is precisely the reliable methodology embedded in it that guarantees its success, and that success is directly linked to the reality of things in themselves. Otherwise, there would be no reason to discard any theory, as all the experiences related the objects and events we inquiry would have all the same factual value and a methodological empirical approach would be worthless.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:29 am This is the usual confusion of terms that make such description a complete mess. The supposed distinction between the "actual person" and the "empirical person" is that the latter one refers not to an ontological entity, but the experience a theoeretical entity would have, even though the actual entity cannot exist.

So it is the experience of a theoretical entity without the entity, which nevertheless includes the experience of life and death of such entity, all reduced to pure illusion, because the only real thing is the experience itself and supposedly, the conditions for there being any experience at all. That is your absurd proposition.
And then we are told the conditions for there being an experience reside a priori in all the cognizing entities, even though these entities actually don't exist. Clever.
Why is it absurd when I am presenting direct evidence of what is the self?
The "empirical" person is not a "theoretical entity" but based on something that is real and supported by empirical evidences.
"Something that is real" can only point to something that really exists. Whatever is a thing that really exists is by definition a thing in itself. This is the core of your contradictions, from which you try to escape by moving from the target point. So first you say "in reality there is no actual person-in-itself", but as soon as this is targeted, you move to "the empirical person is real and supported by evidence". And when this is targeted for the implication it has on your opening argument, you move again to "no actual person in reality". That is absurd.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am Btw, the empirical self and any real self will experience life, BUT never death at all.
Again this is what the theists will believe, i.e. they will experience physical death and from there will be transmitted to heaven or hell.
Actually it is a common theme of theists within the dualist tradition that conscious beings are eternal and only a disposable, temporary part of them, the material body, decays, while leaving their essential being intact in the form of an immaterial substance. Radical monistic idealists go a step further and deny the existence of real, material, mind-independent bodies, just as you advocate.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:30 am Note again, I am not denying dinosaurs did not exist before human from the conventional perspective based on the concept of time, existence, matter, etc.

Whether you refer to dinosaurs, the moon and the likes, ultimately these supposedly and apparently "independent" entities cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Again, as I have pointed out many times before, these two paragraphs contradict each other. Making this contradiction an issue of "perspective" is a mere rethorical artifact, which cannot survive without the use of the words "ultimately", "relatively (or not absolutely)", etc., so that you can move from one position, after it is targeted, to the other position that is in direct contradiction.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:30 am In order to arrive at the judgment, "dinosaurs, the moon and the likes" pre-existed before humans, that judgment you will note is grounded on human conditioned concepts of time, matter, existence, etc.
You're simply denying that judgements could be factual or objective, which is ridiculous.

There's no proof that time and space cannot be both a priori conditions of experience in human cognition AND objective conditions of the world at the same time. They must be conditions of experience precisely because our experience belongs to a real world.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:30 am Btw, AL-Khalili is highly reputable Physicist and you [layperson] condemned his views?
As I had stated you need to brush up and keep up with on modern science.
I don't dispute he's a reputable physicist, but the context of the remarks that you find, let's say "revealing", is a television program aimed to capture the attention of a massive audience of laypersons. Science documentaries are fine, but they are not the ultimate source of knowledge and definitely not the most rigorous platform to decide on these issues. It is more likely that we can apply here your own statement about using different hats: "You need to note a person can wear many hats. If a person [even a notable scientist] believe in woo woo nonsense, at that point and on that issue, there is no way he is wearing the scientific hat. A professional scientist in only qualified to his scientific work which must comply with the requirements of the scientific framework and methods." There's simply no way to find compliance with the scientific framework when you jump from the behavior of particles at the quantum level to statements about the real existence of the Moon. AL-Khalili simply took off his scientific hat and put on the mass-media hat. It is a common problem with science journalists, too.

OTOH, Maturana was also a reputable physicist and science communicator, but his stance on realism in the face of quantum mechanics is on record as a scientific paper.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:29 am There's no other context in discussion but the times of Kant and his project in relation to metaphysics in the 18th century. I have provided now enough references as to make clear that he thought metaphysics as a philosophical discipline was possible and could be reformed to become a proper science.
Note what was "proper-science" to Kant was his own definition which not everyone in the 18th century accepted.

Note the following;
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/302356099.pdf
Abstract: The paper analyses the definition of science as an architectonic unity,
which Kant gives in the Architectonic of Pure Reason. I will show how this definition is problematic, insofar as it is affected by the various ways in which the relationship of reason to ends is discussed in this chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason.
Gabriele Gava
Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason
The paper submitted only shows that Kant's definition of science, just the same as many of the concepts he develops in the CPR, is problematic and full of contradictions. In any case, this doesn't go to the point of whether he wanted to raise metaphysics to the level of a science or not, or more importantly, whether he thought a scientific discipline of metaphysics is possible or not. In fact, the paper suggests, as all the other references I provided, that he thought it was possible. Note what this paragraph entails:
In order to account for these problems concerning Kant’s account of science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason, it is useful to consider together the different aims that he sought to accomplish in this relatively short chapter of the first Critique. First of all, Kant here gives an outline of the metaphysical system he plans to build, clarifying the place of the first Critique within this edifice. Moreover, he further develops some thoughts concerning the relationship between theoretical and practical philosophy, introduced in the Canon of Pure Reason, and he presents a cosmic concept of philosophy that gives priority to the practical. He also gives a teleological account of science as a goal-directed activity, according to which systematicity is an essential character of science.


It would be kind of strange that someone who rejected metaphysics altogether, wanted to outline a metaphysical system himself, don't you think?

Also note this from another Kantian scholar:
Stanford philosopher strengthens Kant's connection to natural science and Newton
As one example, Friedman lays out an argument that Kant viewed Newton’s theory of universal gravitation as “the only proper natural science” for which Kant hoped to provide a metaphysical foundation. In this context, Kant needed a framework that would let him conceptually reduce all motion and rest to absolute space. Absolute space defines a privileged, immovable frame of reference for the moving bodies (such as planets) that occupy it.
That was my point, the papers show Kant's definition of Science which is very wide, loose and general.
It is based on Kant's specific definition of Science that he claimed Metaphysics as Science is possible.

But note what Science during Kant time was already understood with the emphasis on empirical observations and testing re Bacon, i.e. 500 years before Kant;
  • Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20 – c. 1292), also known by the scholastic accolade Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on the study of nature through empiricism.
    [...] He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method. Bacon applied the empirical method of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) to observations in texts attributed to Aristotle.
    Bacon discovered the importance of empirical testing when the results he obtained were different from those that would have been predicted by Aristotle.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
Thus when the question "Is Metaphysics as Science Possible" was raised it was with reference to the above Bacon's view of Science, i.e. empirical based.
As such, my point, based on this view, Metaphysics as a Science is not possible.

Then, what Kant did was to extend the definition to his specification to include a priori non-empirical elements.
Based on this new definition of Kant, he maintained that 'Metaphysics as a Science' is Possible, BUT only if it is confined to Practical [Morality] Philosophy.

Thus my point, there is no way I would simply accept the general view 'Metaphysics as Science is possible' [like you do] without the context and qualification.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am Your hasty generalization is fallacious.
Me as in Empirical Idealism do not agree with that.

My point still stand, materialists and realists believe in something equivalent to a soul [the actual person-in-itself] but those who are non-theists may not believe in a soul per se.
Without any generalization whatsoever, we can easily identify you as the proponent (perhaps implicitly, while not explicitly) of immaterial substances like a soul, aka disembodied consciousness.
You reject actual material bodies in themselves as carriers of consciousness, but nevertheless you stick to the reality of conscious experience and non-substantial human entities. The difference between that, disembodied consciousness and souls is nothing. That's what unites you and all the rest of idealists.
Your thinking in this lacks depth and width.

My views are based on what is the empirical evidences of the person, self, consciousness, etc. supported with critical philosophy of what is real. This is very scientific and where can I be wrong in this?

There is no need for me to speculate [like you do] on philosophical materialism and realism which are delusional and cannot be proven at all [note OP].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am You still don't get it.

Modern materialists and realists do not have direct cognition of subjects-in-themselves like naive realists, but they ASSUMED there is a corresponding supposed-subject-in-itself.

This is why Meno's Paradox is applicable, if you will never ever know [impossible to have direct cognition] of the supposed-in-itself, how can you know there is a really real subject-in-itself?

I supposed you are relying on Science as the most credible and reliable method of inquiry, but as I have argued Science merely ASSUMED there is a supposed thing-in-itself.
You're the one still not getting it.

All knowledge frameworks rely on some assumptions at its base, but this in itself is not a discrediting feature, unless those assumptions remained purely theoretical.
Materialism predated modern science and while it was just the product of pure reflection, as in Greek philosophy, it was just another theory clashing with other doctrines in the field of metaphysics.
Materialist ontology, however, gained traction and became the inseparable companion of modern science because of the particular methodological features introduced by scientific practice, which allowed for a deepest and more reliable understanding of the real features of the world, much more than metaphysics alone could ever imagine.
Thus, the crisis in philosophy and religion that came about after the contributions of Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc., a crisis that set up the conditions for Kant's project to save metaphysics. Unfortunately for him, idealism is not fit to be a companion of modern science, they are not compatible.

Meno's paradox, again, is ridiculous sophistry, with no value to add to a serious philosophical discussion. [/quote]
That you simply brush off Meno's paradox in the above case indicate your lack of philosophical depth and width.

Yes, Materialism and non-materialism was already there before Science.
Then the emergence of Science in its early days gave prominence to realism but later the confidence in Scientific realism was eroded by the more realistic views from
-'the observers' effect, - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
-'theory of relativity' -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
-QM
which contrasted the idea of an absolutely independent reality of classical Science.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am Note, many scientific theories which were once accepted as true and representing its respective thing-in-itself had been abandoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... in_science
Thus in general, the principle what is the thing-in-itself is not critical to Science, otherwise no scientific theories would have been abandoned totally.
A good amount of the listed superseded theories belong to the earlier days of modern science and hardly represent the state of scientific research since the 20th century. In any case, just the fact that they were discarded by scientific practice itself, shows that it is precisely the reliable methodology embedded in it that guarantees its success, and that success is directly linked to the reality of things in themselves. Otherwise, there would be no reason to discard any theory, as all the experiences related the objects and events we inquiry would have all the same factual value and a methodological empirical approach would be worthless.
You don't get it??

The general principle from the evident total abandonment of scientific theories is, whilst a theory may be useful, it is not necessary true absolutely nor represent whatever is in itself.
As such, what is accepted as a scientific theory convincingly at present may be totally abandoned in say 100, 150, 200, 500, 1000 or more in the future. You cannot deny this possibility!

Thus whatever is assumed or supposed to be the thing-in-itself is not critical for science.

Note this OP which I raised to address your request.
viewtopic.php?p=514602#p514602

I added the thing-in-itself you assumed is merely an instinctively invention.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:29 am This is the usual confusion of terms that make such description a complete mess. The supposed distinction between the "actual person" and the "empirical person" is that the latter one refers not to an ontological entity, but the experience a theoeretical entity would have, even though the actual entity cannot exist.

So it is the experience of a theoretical entity without the entity, which nevertheless includes the experience of life and death of such entity, all reduced to pure illusion, because the only real thing is the experience itself and supposedly, the conditions for there being any experience at all. That is your absurd proposition.
And then we are told the conditions for there being an experience reside a priori in all the cognizing entities, even though these entities actually don't exist. Clever.
Why is it absurd when I am presenting direct evidence of what is the self?
The "empirical" person is not a "theoretical entity" but based on something that is real and supported by empirical evidences.
"Something that is real" can only point to something that really exists. Whatever is a thing that really exists is by definition a thing in itself. This is the core of your contradictions, from which you try to escape by moving from the target point. So first you say "in reality there is no actual person-in-itself", but as soon as this is targeted, you move to "the empirical person is real and supported by evidence". And when this is targeted for the implication it has on your opening argument, you move again to "no actual person in reality". That is absurd.
Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in this case.

Nope!
Whatever is a thing that really exists is NOT by definition a thing-in-itself. That is merely your assumption.
What is supposed a real thing must be viewed from different perspectives.

It is very obvious there are different levels of reality that must be dealt with separately.
For example, for the same object, Newtonian Physics deal with its solidness, while for the same object, QM will deal with its sub-atomic particles.
At the basic physical level, a piece of diamond is a solid physical thing, but if one has an instrument that is fine enough that same piece of diamond is 99.9% space [or rather emptiness].
There is thus no such thing as a diamond-in-itself but only a diamond-in-perspective, i.e. relative to the specified perspective.

It is the same with the person which is a solid object to another person or other animals, thus the empirical self which exists as real. This is so evident.
Fundamentally there is only the empirical-related-self and nothing else.

What humans [the masses] is habitualized is to think of a person-in-itself as a thing-in-itself and I do not believe such a thing-in-itself is real.

As I had stated we should be not a slave to this habitualized and instinctively driven thinking of the thing-in-itself, but suspend it and view this point from the whole shebang of cognition, existence, self, consciousness, etc.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 am Btw, the empirical self and any real self will experience life, BUT never death at all.
Again this is what the theists will believe, i.e. they will experience physical death and from there will be transmitted to heaven or hell.
Actually it is a common theme of theists within the dualist tradition that conscious beings are eternal and only a disposable, temporary part of them, the material body, decays, while leaving their essential being intact in the form of an immaterial substance.
Radical monistic idealists go a step further and deny the existence of real, material, mind-independent bodies, just as you advocate.
Nope! Strawman again.
I had never denied "the existence of real, material, mind-independent bodies". I had accepted this view as only one perspective while claiming there is no such thing as absolute independence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:30 am Note again, I am not denying dinosaurs did not exist before human from the conventional perspective based on the concept of time, existence, matter, etc.

Whether you refer to dinosaurs, the moon and the likes, ultimately these supposedly and apparently "independent" entities cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Again, as I have pointed out many times before, these two paragraphs contradict each other. Making this contradiction an issue of "perspective" is a mere rethorical artifact, which cannot survive without the use of the words "ultimately", "relatively (or not absolutely)", etc., so that you can move from one position, after it is targeted, to the other position that is in direct contradiction.
Note my point in the previous post where reality MUST necessarily be viewed from various perspectives of reality.
You think it is nonsense for Physics to view the same object, as solid substance, as molecules, atoms and electrons, then as sub-atomic particles where each perspective has their unique principles?

Note it is not a contradiction as long as p and not-p are accepted as the same time but in different senses [perspectives].
You don't agree with this?

I have applied the above principles of contradiction to my points above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:30 am In order to arrive at the judgment, "dinosaurs, the moon and the likes" pre-existed before humans, that judgment you will note is grounded on human conditioned concepts of time, matter, existence, etc.
You're simply denying that judgements could be factual or objective, which is ridiculous.

There's no proof that time and space cannot be both a priori conditions of experience in human cognition AND objective conditions of the world at the same time. They must be conditions of experience precisely because our experience belongs to a real world.
Note I have argued there is no fact-in-itself, extensively in the following;

There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

What is fact is always dependent on the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]. Therefore whatever is objective fact is ultimately [note ultimately!] conditioned upon human conditions.

Thus the fact 'the moon existed before humans' is ultimately entangled with human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:30 am Btw, AL-Khalili is highly reputable Physicist and you [layperson] condemned his views?
As I had stated you need to brush up and keep up with on modern science.
I don't dispute he's a reputable physicist, but the context of the remarks that you find, let's say "revealing", is a television program aimed to capture the attention of a massive audience of laypersons. Science documentaries are fine, but they are not the ultimate source of knowledge and definitely not the most rigorous platform to decide on these issues. It is more likely that we can apply here your own statement about using different hats: "You need to note a person can wear many hats. If a person [even a notable scientist] believe in woo woo nonsense, at that point and on that issue, there is no way he is wearing the scientific hat. A professional scientist in only qualified to his scientific work which must comply with the requirements of the scientific framework and methods." There's simply no way to find compliance with the scientific framework when you jump from the behavior of particles at the quantum level to statements about the real existence of the Moon. AL-Khalili simply took off his scientific hat and put on the mass-media hat. It is a common problem with science journalists, too.

OTOH, Maturana was also a reputable physicist and science communicator, but his stance on realism in the face of quantum mechanics is on record as a scientific paper.
AL-Khalili and other reputable scientists who appeared in documentaries would not have risked their reputations if they have not published a related paper or relied on published authority to make their statements.

Maturana's view on realism is on record a scientific paper?? where?

Btw, I had explored Maturana's view [in association with Varela] and I agree with many of his views.
Maturana is a fundamentally a biologist thus not credible to assert views re physics and realism.

His views are more toward Critical Realism, where
"The 'real' can not be observed and exists independent from human perceptions, theories, and constructions."
Maturana and Varela have developed important theories about living systems (autopoiesis) and also about the brain/nervous system and cognition. These theories have strongly subjectivist implications leading to the view that our explanations and descriptions reflect the structure of the subject, rather than that of an objective world, and that we therefore construct the world which we experience. This paper analyzes Maturana's ideas in terms of the main philosophical traditions — empiricism, idealism, and realism — showing that they are a blend of both realist and antirealist positions. It then provides a critique of Maturana's radical subjectivism and argues that his theory is best seen as compatible with critical realism.
Critical Realism (CR) is a branch of philosophy that distinguishes between the 'real' world and the 'observable' world. The 'real' can not be observed and exists independent from human perceptions, theories, and constructions. The world as we know and understand it is constructed from our perspectives and experiences, through what is 'observable'. Thus, according to critical realists, unobservable structures cause observable events and the social world can be understood only if people understand the structures that generate events.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:Thus when the question "Is Metaphysics as Science Possible" was raised it was with reference to the above Bacon's view of Science, i.e. empirical based.
As such, my point, based on this view, Metaphysics as a Science is not possible.
But the point was not whether you thought or not that metaphysics as a science is possible, but whether Kant did. Papers show that he did.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Without any generalization whatsoever, we can easily identify you as the proponent (perhaps implicitly, while not explicitly) of immaterial substances like a soul, aka disembodied consciousness.
You reject actual material bodies in themselves as carriers of consciousness, but nevertheless you stick to the reality of conscious experience and non-substantial human entities. The difference between that, disembodied consciousness and souls is nothing. That's what unites you and all the rest of idealists.
My views are based on what is the empirical evidences of the person, self, consciousness, etc. supported with critical philosophy of what is real. This is very scientific and where can I be wrong in this?
My point has been all along that when you present your views in that mode, your language makes them look like sound, realist views. But as we progress into what your words actually entail, it becomes evident that it is just a protecting screen to conceal the actual nonsense that is behind, because "empirical evidence of the person, self, consciousness, etc." do not point at real things, but the experience of things, or the form of things in experience, which you say ultimately don't exist as real things outside of experience. You claim these things are illusory. So the evidence of what? Of nothing. To associate this, even remotely, to science, is ridiculous.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: There is no need for me to speculate [like you do] on philosophical materialism and realism which are delusional and cannot be proven at all [note OP].
So you wished, although your attempts have been unsuccesful.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: That you simply brush off Meno's paradox in the above case indicate your lack of philosophical depth and width.
That I brush off ridiculous sophistry, refuted since a long time ago, just means that I dismiss silly rethorical games that lack any depth. Trying to make it relevant to the discussion is a meausure of the level of sophistry and lack of seriousness in your approach to philosophical issues.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Yes, Materialism and non-materialism was already there before Science.
Then the emergence of Science in its early days gave prominence to realism but later the confidence in Scientific realism was eroded by the more realistic views from
-'the observers' effect, - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
-'theory of relativity' -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
-QM
which contrasted the idea of an absolutely independent reality of classical Science.
Realism and materialism have never abandoned science, but only strengthened its grasp on the nature of the world we live in. The observers' effect and the theory of relativity still rely on an intrinsic direct relationship between phenomena and their underlying causes, independent of the human mind. From the same article:

Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You don't get it??

The general principle from the evident total abandonment of scientific theories is, whilst a theory may be useful, it is not necessary true absolutely nor represent whatever is in itself.
As such, what is accepted as a scientific theory convincingly at present may be totally abandoned in say 100, 150, 200, 500, 1000 or more in the future. You cannot deny this possibility!

Thus whatever is assumed or supposed to be the thing-in-itself is not critical for science.

You're simply confusing the constant improvement and self-correcting methodology of science with a supposed degradation of its realism, which is absolutely not the case. When scientific paradigms change, they do it still committed to a high degree of realism. It doesn't regress to anti-realism, which would imply abandoning science altogether.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in this case.

Nope!
Whatever is a thing that really exists is NOT by definition a thing-in-itself. That is merely your assumption.
What is supposed a real thing must be viewed from different perspectives.
It is very obvious there are different levels of reality that must be dealt with separately.
For example, for the same object, Newtonian Physics deal with its solidness, while for the same object, QM will deal with its sub-atomic particles.
At the basic physical level, a piece of diamond is a solid physical thing, but if one has an instrument that is fine enough that same piece of diamond is 99.9% space [or rather emptiness].
There is thus no such thing as a diamond-in-itself but only a diamond-in-perspective, i.e. relative to the specified perspective.

It is the same with the person which is a solid object to another person or other animals, thus the empirical self which exists as real. This is so evident.
Fundamentally there is only the empirical-related-self and nothing else.

What humans [the masses] is habitualized is to think of a person-in-itself as a thing-in-itself and I do not believe such a thing-in-itself is real.

As I had stated we should be not a slave to this habitualized and instinctively driven thinking of the thing-in-itself, but suspend it and view this point from the whole shebang of cognition, existence, self, consciousness, etc.

You're completely lost!! The most basic basic perspective is that which is inherent to every human being, that is, the pre-theoretical common sense view of the world, which sets the stage for the further development of other more systematized perspectives about reality. But the basic perspective already lays out what's the problem to solve: the world appears at first glance as independent of the subject's mind, implying an actual separation between objects and subjects. But is it really? Realism will take the ontological perspective that the division between subjects and objects is true, and that subjects are just a different class of objects: the "internal" domain is subsumed within the "external" realm. OTOH, the anti-realist gang will take the stance that the division between subjects and objects is not true. All that exists is the "internal" domain of subjects, where "external" objects are just products of the senses and mind. It is here, between these two ontological stances, where the concept of a "thing that exists" acquires its meaning. It is clear that for the anti-realist view, things (objects) don't exist for real, they are products of the senses and mind, and can only display the appearance of an object strictly conditioned to what subjective experience produces, without any possible distinction from hallucination. Within that perspective, experience is all there is, and the content and form of that experience is mere appearance of objects, without the supposed underlying objects actually existing. The only perspective that allows for things actually existing is, obviously, the realist view, and that existence is of the objects independent of the human mind, the objects in themselves. In other words, the anti-realist has assumed a position where they cannot state that "something really exists" without conceding to realists, and therefore, when talking about those objects, we can only be referring to things in themselves, not the appearance of things in cognitive experience, which you and the anti-realist insist is all there is.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Note my point in the previous post where reality MUST necessarily be viewed from various perspectives of reality.
I already cleared up your confusion and showed what are the perspectives of reality, from the common sense view, realists and anti-realists. The anti-realist view is just a confusion of epistemology with ontology.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am You think it is nonsense for Physics to view the same object, as solid substance, as molecules, atoms and electrons, then as sub-atomic particles where each perspective has their unique principles?
All these levels of analysis about what matter is made of, take a realist point of view that ties them all together in a synoptic view, the scientific image.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Note I have argued there is no fact-in-itself, extensively in the following;

There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

What is fact is always dependent on the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]. Therefore whatever is objective fact is ultimately [note ultimately!] conditioned upon human conditions.
A fact is a statement of knowledge about objective reality. While knowledge per se is subjective from the individual point of view, intersubjectivity introduces the possibility of objectivity (check Intersubjective_verifiability). So what this knowledge points to (when referring to facts) is to actual properties of objects that are independent of the subjects. Humans construct their knowledge for sure, intersubjectively, but that doesn't mean reality-in-itself is a human construct. Of course anti-realist are all for denying that there's reality-in-itself, that's why they are not only delusional, but elevate delusion to a category of knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Thus the fact 'the moon existed before humans' is ultimately entangled with human conditions.
Nope. The fact that "the moon existed before humans" means exactly that it is a true statement about a real state of the world that is independent of humans. Otherwise it wouldn't be a fact, and not distinguishable from hallucination, as anti-realists propose.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am AL-Khalili and other reputable scientists who appeared in documentaries would not have risked their reputations if they have not published a related paper or relied on published authority to make their statements.
Al-Khalili has a paper on everyday observable things not existing? Where?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Maturana's view on realism is on record a scientific paper?? where?
I already told you some posts back. Didn't you look it up?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:30 am Btw, I had explored Maturana's view [in association with Varela] and I agree with many of his views.
Maturana is a fundamentally a biologist thus not credible to assert views re physics and realism.

His views are more toward Critical Realism, where
"The 'real' can not be observed and exists independent from human perceptions, theories, and constructions."
I have told you many times that I find Critical Realism very appealing. It has nothing to do with anti-realism:
Critical Realism
In the last decades of the twentieth century it also stood against various forms of postmodernism and poststructuralism by insisting on the reality of objective existence. In contrast to positivism's methodological foundation, and poststructuralism's epistemological foundation, critical realism insists that (social) science should be built from an explicit ontology. Critical realism is one of a range of types of philosophical realism, as well as forms of realism advocated within social science such as analytic realism and subtle realism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Thus when the question "Is Metaphysics as Science Possible" was raised it was with reference to the above Bacon's view of Science, i.e. empirical based.
As such, my point, based on this view, Metaphysics as a Science is not possible.
But the point was not whether you thought or not that metaphysics as a science is possible, but whether Kant did. Papers show that he did.
The papers showed this;
Kant questioned whether "Metaphysics is possible as a science" [like the Science and Mathematics then] and his answer was "No!" and "Yes" i.e. 'No' to the typical Traditional Metaphysics but 'yes' to the Metaphysics of Morality.
As such you cannot give a generalized answers but your answer must be qualified to the contexts involved.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Without any generalization whatsoever, we can easily identify you as the proponent (perhaps implicitly, while not explicitly) of immaterial substances like a soul, aka disembodied consciousness.
You reject actual material bodies in themselves as carriers of consciousness, but nevertheless you stick to the reality of conscious experience and non-substantial human entities. The difference between that, disembodied consciousness and souls is nothing. That's what unites you and all the rest of idealists.
My views are based on what is the empirical evidences of the person, self, consciousness, etc. supported with critical philosophy of what is real. This is very scientific and where can I be wrong in this?
My point has been all along that when you present your views in that mode, your language makes them look like sound, realist views.
But as we progress into what your words actually entail, it becomes evident that it is just a protecting screen to conceal the actual nonsense that is behind, because "empirical evidence of the person, self, consciousness, etc." do not point at real things, but the experience of things, or the form of things in experience, which you say ultimately don't exist as real things outside of experience. You claim these things are illusory. So the evidence of what? Of nothing. To associate this, even remotely, to science, is ridiculous.
Note there are many types of realism.
You keep forgetting that I told you I am an empirical realist, that is why my answer in one perspective is "realist".
This is where I associate with science in term of empirical realism, not philosophical realism.

This is a strawman, I NEVER claimed this;
"empirical evidence of the person, self, consciousness, etc." do not point at real things, but the experience of things, or the form of things in experience, which you say ultimately don't exist as real things outside of experience. You claim these things are illusory.
If I am an empirical realist, how can I claim the empirical evidences above are illusory.
(in contrast you are an empirical idealist, since you claimed what you have of the real thing can only be via your mind and ideas).

What I claimed is, the claim you made, i.e. there is an independent person-in-itself is illusory.
Note I am referring to 'your claim' re philosophical realism that is illusory.
You get this?

What I claimed ultimately is whatever is independent and external is ultimately entangled with the human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: There is no need for me to speculate [like you do] on philosophical materialism and realism which are delusional and cannot be proven at all [note OP].
So you wished, although your attempts have been unsuccesful.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: That you simply brush off Meno's paradox in the above case indicate your lack of philosophical depth and width.
That I brush off ridiculous sophistry, refuted since a long time ago, just means that I dismiss silly rethorical games that lack any depth. Trying to make it relevant to the discussion is a meausure of the level of sophistry and lack of seriousness in your approach to philosophical issues.
It is just that you lack the depth and width to understand its implication in reality.
As above, it is your claim of philosophical realism [in absoluteness] that triggers Meno's Paradox onto your claim, i.e. absurd.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Yes, Materialism and non-materialism was already there before Science.
Then the emergence of Science in its early days gave prominence to realism but later the confidence in Scientific realism was eroded by the more realistic views from
-'the observers' effect, - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
-'theory of relativity' -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
-QM
which contrasted the idea of an absolutely independent reality of classical Science.
Realism and materialism have never abandoned science, but only strengthened its grasp on the nature of the world we live in. The observers' effect and the theory of relativity still rely on an intrinsic direct relationship between phenomena and their underlying causes, independent of the human mind. From the same article:

Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
I have NEVER claimed [in this case] that the conscious mind can directly affect reality consciously.
The implication of the above is whatever are scientific truths and whatever they are about, are never fully independent of the human conditions.

Note you are building strawmen all the way thus I have to use the phrase "I NEVER claimed.." so many times.

I am insisting Philosophical Realism and material realism is not imperative for Science.
I have raised an OP to get to the bottom of it.
Is P. 'Realism' Imperative for Science?
viewforum.php?f=5
Suggest you present your argument therein.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You don't get it??

The general principle from the evident total abandonment of scientific theories is, whilst a theory may be useful, it is not necessary true absolutely nor represent whatever is in itself.
As such, what is accepted as a scientific theory convincingly at present may be totally abandoned in say 100, 150, 200, 500, 1000 or more in the future. You cannot deny this possibility!

Thus whatever is assumed or supposed to be the thing-in-itself is not critical for science.

You're simply confusing the constant improvement and self-correcting methodology of science with a supposed degradation of its realism, which is absolutely not the case. When scientific paradigms change, they do it still committed to a high degree of realism. It doesn't regress to anti-realism, which would imply abandoning science altogether.
Science don't give a damn with philosophical realism nor anti-realism.
It is philosophers for their own purposes attributed realism to Science, it is evident from a philosophical perspective that science is not absolutely realism. I have provided argument why modern science is moving toward anti-realistic views.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in this case.

Nope!
Whatever is a thing that really exists is NOT by definition a thing-in-itself. That is merely your assumption.
What is supposed a real thing must be viewed from different perspectives.
It is very obvious there are different levels of reality that must be dealt with separately.
For example, for the same object, Newtonian Physics deal with its solidness, while for the same object, QM will deal with its sub-atomic particles.
At the basic physical level, a piece of diamond is a solid physical thing, but if one has an instrument that is fine enough that same piece of diamond is 99.9% space [or rather emptiness].
There is thus no such thing as a diamond-in-itself but only a diamond-in-perspective, i.e. relative to the specified perspective.

It is the same with the person which is a solid object to another person or other animals, thus the empirical self which exists as real. This is so evident.
Fundamentally there is only the empirical-related-self and nothing else.

What humans [the masses] is habitualized is to think of a person-in-itself as a thing-in-itself and I do not believe such a thing-in-itself is real.

As I had stated we should be not a slave to this habitualized and instinctively driven thinking of the thing-in-itself, but suspend it and view this point from the whole shebang of cognition, existence, self, consciousness, etc.

You're completely lost!!
The most basic basic perspective is that which is inherent to every human being, that is, the pre-theoretical common sense view of the world, which sets the stage for the further development of other more systematized perspectives about reality.

But the basic perspective already lays out what's the problem to solve: the world appears at first glance as independent of the subject's mind, implying an actual separation between objects and subjects. But is it really?

Realism will take the ontological perspective that the division between subjects and objects is true, and that subjects are just a different class of objects: the "internal" domain is subsumed within the "external" realm.

OTOH, the anti-realist gang will take the stance that the division between subjects and objects is not true.
All that exists is the "internal" domain of subjects, where "external" objects are just products of the senses and mind. It is here, between these two ontological stances, where the concept of a "thing that exists" acquires its meaning.
It is clear that for the anti-realist view, things (objects) don't exist for real, they are products of the senses and mind, and can only display the appearance of an object strictly conditioned to what subjective experience produces, without any possible distinction from hallucination.
Within that perspective, experience is all there is, and the content and form of that experience is mere appearance of objects, without the supposed underlying objects actually existing.
The only perspective that allows for things actually existing is, obviously, the realist view, and that existence is of the objects independent of the human mind, the objects in themselves.
In other words, the anti-realist has assumed a position where they cannot state that "something really exists" without conceding to realists, and therefore, when talking about those objects, we can only be referring to things in themselves, not the appearance of things in cognitive experience, which you and the anti-realist insist is all there is.
There you go again with your STRAWMAN.
Note there are many types of anti-realist and you cannot slot me as with ALL anti-realists.

I have claimed to be an empirical realist [believing in an external world] but at the same time is also an anti-realist [typical] as a transcendental idealist [reality cannot be absolute independent of human conditions].

If you insist "something really exists" then prove it exists as a thing-in-itself.

Prove there is a really real table-in-itself as in this thread?
There is No Table-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27599
Post Reply