Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Fri May 14, 2021 6:03 am According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves . . .
Yes, of course. That's the whole gist of the view contra representationalism.
That errors are accepted does not compromised the essence of the naive realism principle.
Huh?
To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions
Again, naive realism doesn't claim that perception is infallible, and the Wikipedia article doesn't say or imply that naive realism says that perception is infallible--in fact it explicitly says otherwise. You misunderstood the article, which apparently served as your sole basis of what the view is.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:09 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am
"Take my words for it"??
I am sorry for you that you are so ignorant.

Maybe the example I shown was not contrasted enough.
Here is another;

Image

If you cannot see two 'bend' lines, you should consult a psychiatrist or psychologist.
The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.
Off you trot to the shrink!
Do you even understand what is induction and how Science leverage on induction in producing scientific knowledge which has contributed to humanity greatly?
Yes I do, but you do not.

It is not the same as deduction. You do not get to impose your generalities on the data. With inductive thinking the generalisms are suggested by the data.
When you bang on about objective morality your are simply trying to impose your views deductively upon the morality of others. You are deducting FROM your FSK (BS)
Induction is all about starting with EVIDENCE. That would mean examining human morals and seeing if anything general occurs.
You have it all backwards.
Eveyone on the FOrum knows this, but you are failing to.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:24 am
Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 4:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:28 am As such, indirect realism is one-up on naive realism as a theory of reality, but indirect realism is still flawed since it assumed there is still an objective reality out there.
That's not a flaw, it's the only reasonable guess. It's simply the case that no matter how we conceive of this objective reality, our conception will always be dependent on "human conditions", in other words we can't get outside our own minds.
If philosophical realists admit and concede it is a reasonable guess, then there is no issue.
But philosophical realists insist there is a real independent objective reality out there as real awaiting discovery.
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. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.

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 [...]

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
In addition, realists will condemn those who think otherwise from the above.

It would be of no issue if realists merely guess [reasonably] and assume there is an independent [of human conditions] objective out there, for intellectual and discussion sake, but not insisting there is something really real out there.
This is what modern science would do, i.e. merely assuming there is an objective world out there awaiting discovery.
The text you quoted seems to disagree with you:
"realism ... is the thesis ..."

Obviously, no one with half a brain claims absolute certainty about their views, be it realists or antirealists or anyone else. (Although, the majority of philosophers seem to possess less than half a brain, I'll give you that much.)
Last edited by Atla on Fri May 14, 2021 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:34 am
Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:25 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:46 pm
What does your phrase, "outside our own minds," refer to?
You as that "human mind", can't be outside that "human mind". You can't be outside yourself.

VA thinks that this proves that the human mind (where the "human conditions" are) has no outside.
Here is a clue,
1. The whole universe [all of reality] can be viewed as a "womb" that is sustaining human life and other beings and all are interconnected as a oneness [non-dual] in the ultimate sense.

2. But of course there are other perspectives, senses and duality in spontaneity within oneness. Here is where there is the duality of internalness and externalness, i.e. giving rise to an independent external world but this is subsumed within 1.
It makes no sense to single out the human conditions. For example:

The whole universe [all of reality] can be viewed as a "cemetery" where the remnants of exploding stars get scattered. Therefore the universe is conditioned upon star-remnantness. (heh)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

Watchin' indirectists disagree is the tops.

Continue, please.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:05 pm Watchin' indirectists disagree is the tops.

Continue, please.
We all start out as naive realists, but then some people get a clue. ;)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:05 pm Watchin' indirectists disagree is the tops.

Continue, please.
We all start out as naive realists, but then some people get a clue. ;)
I haven't been disabused of my naïveté yet.

You indirectists need to try harder.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:12 pm
Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:05 pm Watchin' indirectists disagree is the tops.

Continue, please.
We all start out as naive realists, but then some people get a clue. ;)
I haven't been disabused of my naïveté yet.

You indirectists need to try harder.
Why do you think that I care about your wrong views?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:53 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:12 pm
Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:24 pm

We all start out as naive realists, but then some people get a clue. ;)
I haven't been disabused of my naïveté yet.

You indirectists need to try harder.
Why do you think that I care about your wrong views?
I'm not that naive: you care about the subject...you wouldn't be in this thread defendin' indirect realism/attemptin' (unsuccessfully) to dismantle opposin' views if you didn't.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:36 pm
Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:53 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:12 pm

I haven't been disabused of my naïveté yet.

You indirectists need to try harder.
Why do you think that I care about your wrong views?
I'm not that naive: you care about the subject...you wouldn't be in this thread defendin' indirect realism/attemptin' (unsuccessfully) to dismantle opposin' views if you didn't.
Hehe wrong, I just comment for fun here. Naive realism was dismantled long ago, you simply didn't understand why. The fun part is trying to get people to have some insights that are somewhat above their level.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

I just comment for fun here.

Oh, you're one of those.

Okeedoke.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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 »

Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:05 pm Watchin' indirectists disagree is the tops.

Continue, please.
We all start out as naive realists, but then some people get a clue. ;)
When you get to the final clue you return to the marketplace.

Image

Maybe you'll get there some day.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 12:24 am
Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:05 pm Watchin' indirectists disagree is the tops.

Continue, please.
We all start out as naive realists, but then some people get a clue. ;)
When you get to the final clue you return to the marketplace.

Image

Maybe you'll get there some day.
You are so bad at dealing with your insignificance and incompetence :)
I ignored you for weeks without a word, and yet you can't stop putting your insecurities on display :)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:09 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 am

The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.
Off you trot to the shrink!
Do you even understand what is induction and how Science leverage on induction in producing scientific knowledge which has contributed to humanity greatly?
Yes I do, but you do not.

It is not the same as deduction. You do not get to impose your generalities on the data. With inductive thinking the generalisms are suggested by the data.
When you bang on about objective morality your are simply trying to impose your views deductively upon the morality of others. You are deducting FROM your FSK (BS)
Induction is all about starting with EVIDENCE. That would mean examining human morals and seeing if anything general occurs.
You have it all backwards.
Everyone on the FOrum knows this, but you are failing to.
You are obviously projecting from ignorance.

Obvious induction is not deduction but deduction is ultimately grounded on induction, i.e. the first premise of a deduction related to reality is always based on evidence and experience - currently or adapted via evolution.

Where did I deduce my conclusion re moral realities based on deduction? Re morality, I have always argued my approach is based on evidence and experience, i.e. induction. Note 99% of the almost 8 billion of people on Earth [..I presume you included as well] do not display any eager impulse to kill humans.

Everyone?? you are blatantly lying.
What is critical is not ad populum but rather whether one's arguments are grounded and solid or not.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 4:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:34 am
Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:25 pm
You as that "human mind", can't be outside that "human mind". You can't be outside yourself.

VA thinks that this proves that the human mind (where the "human conditions" are) has no outside.
Here is a clue,
1. The whole universe [all of reality] can be viewed as a "womb" that is sustaining human life and other beings and all are interconnected as a oneness [non-dual] in the ultimate sense.

2. But of course there are other perspectives, senses and duality in spontaneity within oneness. Here is where there is the duality of internalness and externalness, i.e. giving rise to an independent external world but this is subsumed within 1.
It makes no sense to single out the human conditions. For example:

The whole universe [all of reality] can be viewed as a "cemetery" where the remnants of exploding stars get scattered. Therefore the universe is conditioned upon star-remnantness. (heh)
Obviously it is true the whole universe, i.e. all of reality is grounded upon star-dusts from exploding stars, gravity of active stars and other processes. If there is no such star-dusts there would not be the whole of the universe and the associated reality.
Post Reply