Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6612
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

One the of most common and serious contention within the philosophical community is the Philosophical Realists versus the Anti-Philosophical_Realists position.

Philosophical_Realism
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
    Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

    Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[7]

    Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved

    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
Anti-Philosophical_Realists
What we have in general opposition to Philosophical_Realism are the various Anti-Philosophical_Realism views which has their own different version of anti-philosophical_realism.
For example the typical philosophical idealism comprised a broad range of views of idealism, e.g. Berkeley's subjective idealism versus Kant transcendental idealism.

Note, to state the idealism means things exist dependent on mind is very misleading.
Generally in opposing philosophical realism, anti-philosophical_realism claim that things cannot exist independent of the human mind or human conditions.

Whilst the anti-philosophical_realists can accept a very evident mind-independent world from the common conventional sense perspective, the philosophical_realists just cannot comprehend the anti-philosophical_realist position, i.e. things cannot exist independent of the human mind or human conditions.

I believe why the philosophical_realists are unable to comprehend the anti-philosophical_realist position is just like why the majority of animals [with some exceptions] are unable to comprehend the reflection-of-themselves-in-a-mirror are really an image of themselves instead of seeing a stranger.

Note:
Chimps Attacks Mirror Reflections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMHnNF2rqpI

A Palm-nut Vulture attacks its reflection in a mirror set in the Gabon jungle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBsjxqkTt4

These animals are entrapped with an evolutionary program that do not enable them to see the 'truth' of reality.

Similarly, philosophical_realists are like the above ignorant animals entrapped by evolution which do not enable them to view in another perspective of reality.

The philosohical_realists are like people who are unable to see both the rabbit and the duck in this image. They can only see one image, either duck or rabbit,

Image

The irony is the philosophical realists in their ignorance are SO arrogant in condemning those who see things in a different perspective or different perspectives.

Btw, whatever is claimed in various perspectives must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, thus no room for any woo woo ideas.

Any counter from realists to the above?
codirosso
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 7:05 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by codirosso »

The duck-rabbit picture that you show is similar to Descartes's example of the "broken" stick in the water. Human senses can sometimes be misleading... at first...and then corrected by the same mind. In my opinion, this is not like saying that all reality (objects) are not as they are outside of our perception. A duck is a duck, a rabbit is a rabbit, also when we don't see them (ask a fox). The main problem in your thinking that I see, I dare to say, is the fact that while realism philosophy accepts that subject and object of thinking can be both parts of philosophical thinking and so open to a leal to analysis and critics, your position seems but to hold on subjectivism (the subject, me, the mind) and so not adequately considering the object as it is.

Furthermore, higher animals do have abstract knowledge and a clear perception that they exist. In my opinion, somehow this is true also in a duck and a rabbit running for their lives (we shall ask an ethologist). Humans do not recognize themselves in a mirror when babies.

I agree with what you say, that ideas must be verifiable and justifiable. This is done also by logic. Which must not contradict itself. I learned that Kant, however, did not consider testing his idea. He only considered the perception from the subjective point of view (how the process of knowledge occurs) without considering that the object might really exist as it is. Correct me if I am wrong.

I see the difference between the two philosophical positions in this conclusion: idealism (anti-philosophical-realism as you put it) bends the thought to any one's idea (very often with very complicated and obscure reasoning, often with lots of German words in-between).

In general, modern philosophy seems to be more interested in a kind of subjective "wisdom" more than in what is just (not my words). The duck-rabbit picture that you show is in my opinion, not a good example of how we should think nor a good target to where we should get. Truth is one.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4170
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Terrapin Station »

"Any counter from realists to the above?"

Yes. Work on being able to argue for/justify your views, including against objections that you need to be able to understand and specifically address rather than hoping to just get by on insult-oriented rhetoric.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10937
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...

The world exists, and it exists independent of me.

The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.

What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.

The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10937
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

And: I see a duck and rabbit just fine.

And: I recognize the reflection in the mirror as my own.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6612
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:47 pm And: I see a duck and rabbit just fine.

And: I recognize the reflection in the mirror as my own.
You missed my point.

What I implied in the analogy is

just as the chimpanzee, bird or other animals cannot recognize their reflection in mirror represented themselves, [not a stranger],
the realist [you in this case] cannot understand why 'independent objects' are ultimately not independent of the human conditions.

Mother and Baby Chimp in Front of a Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z48pJP28SIg

You will from the above video, the mother chimp is carrying her baby in front of the mirror.
Surely the mother chimp knows how her baby looked like.

Why is that the mother chimp could not recognize the baby in the mirror is hers?

Why is the mother chimp not able to realize, hey that is my baby in the baby and therefore the what I see is just a reflection rather than seeing another mother chimp and a baby?

There must be something in the brain of the mother chimp that inhibited her from seeing the reflection in the mirror as herself and her own baby.

As such, analogously there is something in the realists' brain that inhibited them from seeing the obvious independent "apple" as ultimately not independent from the human conditions.

Note:
Some chimps, other primates, dolphins, elephants, etc. could recognize their reflections in a mirror as themselves, that is after much experiences and mental-reflection [inference].
Note this,
Chimpanzees React to Their Reflections in a Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoNKlyFtpI&t=1s

In this case, the chimp after much experience and mental-reflection must have loosen the original inhibition and increased and advanced its mental competences in enabling it to realize the reflection in the mirror is himself.
Note how the chimp check his own teeth, eyes, and nose in the mirror.

I believe, similarly, if realists were to do more mental reflection on the issue, they would be able to realize common sense independent "apple" is ultimately not independent from the human conditions in the ultimate sense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6612
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 9:32 am "Any counter from realists to the above?"

Yes. Work on being able to argue for/justify your views, including against objections that you need to be able to understand and specifically address rather than hoping to just get by on insult-oriented rhetoric.
I believe you are your own problem.
Noted in your discussion with Bahman, you had the same problem and complained Bahman did not answer to your expectations.

I believe you will have the same problem with whoever have opposing views with yours. As I had stated, you are stuck in a dogmatic paradigm.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4170
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 7:21 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 9:32 am "Any counter from realists to the above?"

Yes. Work on being able to argue for/justify your views, including against objections that you need to be able to understand and specifically address rather than hoping to just get by on insult-oriented rhetoric.
I believe you are your own problem.
Noted in your discussion with Bahman, you had the same problem and complained Bahman did not answer to your expectations.

I believe you will have the same problem with whoever have opposing views with yours. As I had stated, you are stuck in a dogmatic paradigm.
Yeah, it can't possibly be that more than one person on a message board is incapable of directly addressing opposing points, objections, etc. in a focused, detailed, cogent manner.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10937
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

just as the chimpanzee, bird or other animals cannot recognize their reflection in mirror represented themselves, [not a stranger],
the realist [you in this case] cannot understand why 'independent objects' are ultimately not independent of the human conditions.


This is the equivalent of bein' called racist!. There's no counter to it. Anything I, or any realist might offer, is dismissed as an example of inability in the same way as anyone who self-defends against the charge of racism finds his defense turned into evidence of racism.

I'll pass: I just came out of one rabbit hole so I'm not lookin' to jump into another.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:46 pm I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...

The world exists, and it exists independent of me.

The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.

What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.

The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
I never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.

There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4170
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Terrapin Station »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:46 pm I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...

The world exists, and it exists independent of me.

The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.

What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.

The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
I never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.

There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
"Realism" in a philosophical context hasn't automatically denoted realism on universals for a very long time--like well over 100 years.
Atla
Posts: 3374
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:24 pm I never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.

There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
Representationalism was proven correct by modern science and psychology. What we experience is a representation, a model of the world, and this representation is located in our head.
The representation itself is real and is "based on the human conditions". What is external to the representation is equally real and not "based on the human conditions" (but it's unknowable, we can only assume that anything external to the representation exists).

Seems to me that this fits neither philosophical realism nor antirealism, in hindsight they were overly simplistic guesses.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 5:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:46 pm I say the followin' without arrogance or condemnation...

The world exists, and it exists independent of me.

The apple on my table is real, and it and the table both exist whether I, or anyone, pay either any mind.

What I bring to the table (and apple) is perspective and language.

The thing I call apple, should I die, still exists as my carcass rots. What's missin' is the one who names, the one who applies significance to the apple by recognizin' it and ascribin' a value to it. Apple (the placeholder) dies with me; the value I give it dies with me; the thing itself remains. That thing exists, as I say, independent of me.
I never argue with, "philosophical realism," which is not what you and I mean by realism. You and I mean, the apple I see on the table is a real apple, and it is exactly what it appears to be, and there is no more-real apple than the one I'm seeing.

The philosophical realist means the apple you see is only a sample or less-than-perfectly-real apple that only reflects or represents the, "really real," apple (somewhere). It's Platonic nonsense, but it infects all of philosophy.

There is no place for the understanding of actual apples being the only real apples in either, "idealism," or, what's called, "realism," in philosophy. They are both assaults on the truth by means of a false dichotomy.
"Realism" in a philosophical context hasn't automatically denoted realism on universals for a very long time--like well over 100 years.
No one these days is invoking Platonic forms, but the assault on reality continues to assert perceived reality is not actually reality as it is. From the OP:

"Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved,"

... or Kant's absurd assertion of the noumenon/phenomenon dichotomy, or any of the other denials that perceived reality is reality as it actually is, but,
"something else," is the really-real exitense, without ever saying what that mystical real existence is. It is superstition being put over as, "scientific philosophy."
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 5:35 pm What we experience is a representation, a model of the world, and this representation is located in our head.{/quote}
Where in the head? How do you know it's there? How do you know it's in the head and not the stomach?

It is very difficult to believe people actually take this psychobable seriously. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind of, "models," in the head, much less a model of the world. Unless you already know what the world is, it would be impossible to know if any such model in the head was a representation of that world, or of something else. With what would you compare it to be sure?

If I show you a block of wood with knobs and holes all over it and tell you it is a model of an airplane, unless you know what an airplane is, how would know that object was not a model of an airplane? If you had a model of anything in your head, you could have no idea what it represents.

Why do you think the world you see, hear, feel, smell and taste is not the world as it actually is? Do you think trees are actually elephants, that oysters actually taste like tangerines, that women are actually telephone poles, and that music is actually an odor? When you go out to dinner, do you think the steak and vegetables you ordered are, actually wool and tacks, that they don't really taste the way they taste, that the wine is not really red and tastes like iodine?

"Well, what you see is something like the real world, but not exactly?" Is that what you think? How exact does it have to be? --like a microscope? --a telescope? What would be perfect? How close to reality as it actually is, does the world we see look? How do you know that?

I give up.
Atla
Posts: 3374
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:10 pm
Atla wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 5:35 pm What we experience is a representation, a model of the world, and this representation is located in our head.{/quote}
Where in the head? How do you know it's there? How do you know it's in the head and not the stomach?

It is very difficult to believe people actually take this psychobable seriously. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind of, "models," in the head, much less a model of the world. Unless you already know what the world is, it would be impossible to know if any such model in the head was a representation of that world, or of something else. With what would you compare it to be sure?

If I show you a block of wood with knobs and holes all over it and tell you it is a model of an airplane, unless you know what an airplane is, how would know that object was not a model of an airplane? If you had a model of anything in your head, you could have no idea what it represents.

Why do you think the world you see, hear, feel, smell and taste is not the world as it actually is? Do you think trees are actually elephants, that oysters actually taste like tangerines, that women are actually telephone poles, and that music is actually an odor? When you go out to dinner, do you think the steak and vegetables you ordered are, actually wool and tacks, that they don't really taste the way they taste, that the wine is not really red and tastes like iodine?

"Well, what you see is something like the real world, but not exactly?" Is that what you think? How exact does it have to be? --like a microscope? --a telescope? What would be perfect? How close to reality as it actually is, does the world we see look? How do you know that?

I give up.
Looks like you somehow missed the last 100 years of neuroscience and psychology, which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that what people experience is correlated with how their particular brains are working or not working. Yes, Kant didn't get it quite right, but was basically correct, we only have access to these appearances that are probably created in the head, and the rest is assumed based on these appearances.

Guess now you're the one clinging to substitues for rational knowledge, because you don't happen to like said knowledge.
Post Reply