Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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 14, 2021 11:45 am
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 compromise[] 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.
Why you did not present my whole point but cut off the critical point,

To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions plus many others especially there is no things-in-themselves as really real things.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481

The natural illusions [not errors] are merely a clue, what is critical is ultimate there is no real things-in-themselves that correspond to the naive realists representations.

When you perceive an "apple" out there, as a naive realist you merely assumed there is an apple that fit yours [and other naive realists'] perception and description of it.
And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.
As such there is no objective "apple" but merely a subjective apple depending on which point of view the person[s] adopt to realize the supposed apple.

In principle the naive realist view of reality based on guesswork, albeit is useful, but ultimately it is flawed.
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: Sat May 15, 2021 4:48 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 12:24 am
Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:24 pm

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 :)
That one ignores someone doesn't at all imply that they will ignore you. If you are unable to ignore my posts that's your problem.
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: Sat May 15, 2021 9:20 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:45 am
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 compromise[] 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.
Why you did not present my whole point but cut off the critical point,

To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions plus many others especially there is no things-in-themselves as really real things.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481

The natural illusions [not errors] are merely a clue, what is critical is ultimate there is no real things-in-themselves that correspond to the naive realists representations.

When you perceive an "apple" out there, as a naive realist you merely assumed there is an apple that fit yours [and other naive realists'] perception and description of it.
And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.
As such there is no objective "apple" but merely a subjective apple depending on which point of view the person[s] adopt to realize the supposed apple.

In principle the naive realist view of reality based on guesswork, albeit is useful, but ultimately it is flawed.
How about not ignoring that you misunderstood the Wikipedia article?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:04 am
Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 4:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:34 am 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.
Point is, we can single out anything we want and say that the universe is "conditioned" upon it.

Universe is conditioned upon human conditions
Universe is conditioned upon stardust
Universe is conditioned upon gravity
Universe is conditioned upon spacetime
Universe is conditioned upon Stalin-ness
Universe is conditioned upon cat conditions (my personal favourite)

In the ultimate sense, "human conditions" play no special role. I don't see anything here that would be a flaw in indirect realism.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 8:58 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:09 am
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.
Tut tut. All you got is ad hominem
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 »

VA: When you perceive an "apple" out there, as a naive realist you merely assumed there is an apple that fit yours [and other naive realists'] perception and description of it.

Me: No. When I see the object I call apple, I see it. I recognize it exists and I describe it. There's no pre-loaded model for it in my head, no cobbled-together representation of it in my brain. I develop beliefs and opinions about the apple but these come after I apprehend the apple and those beliefs and opinions have no bearing on the apple's existence, its realness, itself.


VA: And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.


Me: It is those things, but those things aren't more or less real than what I apprehend. The apple is particles/waves and quarks and atoms and molecules and red and shaped and weighty in my hand and sweet and coarse on my tongue. It's all those things or qualities and more.


VA: As such there is no objective "apple" but merely a subjective apple depending on which point of view the person[s] adopt to realize the supposed apple.

Me: So how is it I know to select the representation of apple? How is it the model of apple fits whatever it is I'm modeling?

It fits cuz there is no representation or model. I directly apprehend the thing, apprehend its qualities, name it apple or la pomme or la manzana.

-----

edited cuz some very smart people just don't get it
Last edited by henry quirk on Sat May 15, 2021 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
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: Sat May 15, 2021 2:31 pm When I see the object I call apple, I see it. I recognize it exists and I describe it. There's no pre-loaded model for it in my head, no cobbled-together representation of it in my brain. I develop beliefs and opinions about the apple but these come after I apprehend the apple and those beliefs and opinions have no bearing on the apple's existence, its realness, itself.

And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.
Actually the apple you see, exactly as you see it the most real. The chemical elements, molecules, and sub-atomic particle are all science's metaphorical explanations of the apple's perceived properties, and, without the actual apple, would not exist at all. The only reason for believing in the chemical elements is because there are real perceivable physical entities made out of them. Without real apples, rocks, trees, and people, there would be no atoms or any reason to believe in them.

It's very odd that all science must begin assuming what is perceived is reality exactly as it is perceived in order to discover the principles that describe and explain it, then ultimately attempts to use those principles to deny the very reality which is the foundation of all science. Atoms are not more real than apples, they are only real because there are real apples which they correctly explain.

[If your are interested I can explain why atoms are actually less real than apples.]
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

It's odd that the OP distances himself from "realists", since most arguments against his position are sympathetic to the subjectivity of the idealist position, not the OP's naive realism of moral objectivism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:04 am
Atla wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 4:17 pm
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.
Point is, we can single out anything we want and say that the universe is "conditioned" upon it.

1. Universe is conditioned upon human conditions
2. Universe is conditioned upon stardust
3. Universe is conditioned upon gravity
4. Universe is conditioned upon spacetime
5. Universe is conditioned upon Stalin-ness
6. Universe is conditioned upon cat conditions (my personal favourite)

In the ultimate sense, "human conditions" play no special role. I don't see anything here that would be a flaw in indirect realism.
1 is a universal condition.
2-4 are partial conditions.

5 & 6 is based on lack of intelligence and ignorance.

The concept of "human conditions" is ultimately significant for the progress of humanity in that it implied humans are part-and-parcel-of and contributed to "what is reality".
From this perspective it implies that humans has at least some control over its destiny rather than be independent objects [realists' view] at the mercy of whatever is external and independent to it.

The above is the ultimate sense and this does not mean all humans should abandon the common, conventional and other perspectives of reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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: Sat May 15, 2021 9:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:20 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:45 am

Yes, of course. That's the whole gist of the view contra representationalism.


Huh?



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.
Why you did not present my whole point but cut off the critical point,

To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions plus many others especially there is no things-in-themselves as really real things.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481

The natural illusions [not errors] are merely a clue, what is critical is ultimate there is no real things-in-themselves that correspond to the naive realists representations.

When you perceive an "apple" out there, as a naive realist you merely assumed there is an apple that fit yours [and other naive realists'] perception and description of it.
And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.
As such there is no objective "apple" but merely a subjective apple depending on which point of view the person[s] adopt to realize the supposed apple.

In principle the naive realist view of reality based on guesswork, albeit is useful, but ultimately it is flawed.
How about not ignoring that you misunderstood the Wikipedia article?
Do you depend on Wiki as the ultimate authority on human knowledge?

Use your brain!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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: Sat May 15, 2021 2:31 pm VA: When you perceive an "apple" out there, as a naive realist you merely assumed there is an apple that fit yours [and other naive realists'] perception and description of it.

Me: No. When I see the object I call apple, I see it. I recognize it exists and I describe it. There's no pre-loaded model for it in my head, no cobbled-together representation of it in my brain. I develop beliefs and opinions about the apple but these come after I apprehend the apple and those beliefs and opinions have no bearing on the apple's existence, its realness, itself.
Note your use of "I" at every corner.
That is a very personal and subjective 'apple' you are dealing not an objective apple out there independent of anyone's beliefs or opinions.
VA: And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.


Me: It is those things, but those things aren't more or less real than what I apprehend. The apple is particles/waves and quarks and atoms and molecules and red and shaped and weighty in my hand and sweet and coarse on my tongue. It's all those things or qualities and more.
Generally it is is accepted that the greater the precision, the greater the degree of realness of whatever is real.

For example a shoal of herring is a real thing a fisherman would forward to catch.
But it would be more realistic if the precise quantity and number of fishes within the shoal is known.

It is the same with a packed crowd of humans as a real thing but it would be more realistic to know the exact number of people in that crowd and much more realistic if we know the gender, names, and person features of each person in the crowd.

It is the same with the apple which is thing and knowing that it is jam-packed with molecules, atom and sub-atomic particles that contribute to its solidness, color, taste, shape, etc. would be more realistic than merely seeing it as one edible fruit.

Perhaps you personally don't give a damn with the details which are more realistic, but this is a general philosophy forum not a discussion of personal preferences.
VA: As such there is no objective "apple" but merely a subjective apple depending on which point of view the person[s] adopt to realize the supposed apple.

Me: So how is it I know to select the representation of apple? How is it the model of apple fits whatever it is I'm modeling?

It fits cuz there is no representation or model. I directly apprehend the thing, apprehend its qualities, name it apple or la pomme or la manzana.

-----

edited cuz some very smart people just don't get it
Note the "I" you use is very personal and thus very subjective.

Maybe you don't give a damn to Stephen Hawking, and cling only to your personal view, but note Model-dependent realism;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
The above imply there is no true real apple out there.
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: Sun May 16, 2021 3:45 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:20 am
Why you did not present my whole point but cut off the critical point,

To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions plus many others especially there is no things-in-themselves as really real things.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481

The natural illusions [not errors] are merely a clue, what is critical is ultimate there is no real things-in-themselves that correspond to the naive realists representations.

When you perceive an "apple" out there, as a naive realist you merely assumed there is an apple that fit yours [and other naive realists'] perception and description of it.
And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.
As such there is no objective "apple" but merely a subjective apple depending on which point of view the person[s] adopt to realize the supposed apple.

In principle the naive realist view of reality based on guesswork, albeit is useful, but ultimately it is flawed.
How about not ignoring that you misunderstood the Wikipedia article?
Do you depend on Wiki as the ultimate authority on human knowledge?

Use your brain!
lol--that's what you gave as the source of the claim that naive realism claims infallibility.

So what's your alternate source?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 4:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:31 pm When I see the object I call apple, I see it. I recognize it exists and I describe it. There's no pre-loaded model for it in my head, no cobbled-together representation of it in my brain. I develop beliefs and opinions about the apple but these come after I apprehend the apple and those beliefs and opinions have no bearing on the apple's existence, its realness, itself.

And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.
Actually the apple you see, exactly as you see it the most real. The chemical elements, molecules, and sub-atomic particle are all science's metaphorical explanations of the apple's perceived properties, and, without the actual apple, would not exist at all. The only reason for believing in the chemical elements is because there are real perceivable physical entities made out of them. Without real apples, rocks, trees, and people, there would be no atoms or any reason to believe in them.

It's very odd that all science must begin assuming what is perceived is reality exactly as it is perceived in order to discover the principles that describe and explain it, then ultimately attempts to use those principles to deny the very reality which is the foundation of all science. Atoms are not more real than apples, they are only real because there are real apples which they correctly explain.

[If your are interested I can explain why atoms are actually less real than apples.]
You are SO ignorant.

This is laughable.
You are claiming atoms are real because there are real apples, real fruit, real cars, real people, real whatever.
What about real atom-bombs that killed millions in Japan?
It is such real atom-bombs that killed millions in Japan that is an indication 'atoms' are real.

To update your knowledge of what are real atoms, just google "real atoms" and the note the numerous researches and images from the search.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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: Sun May 16, 2021 4:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:45 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 9:46 am

How about not ignoring that you misunderstood the Wikipedia article?
Do you depend on Wiki as the ultimate authority on human knowledge?

Use your brain!
lol--that's what you gave as the source of the claim that naive realism claims infallibility.

So what's your alternate source?
When anyone referenced Wiki it is a starting point subject to further verifications and research. Note I added the other points which you ignored.
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: Sun May 16, 2021 4:32 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:45 am
Do you depend on Wiki as the ultimate authority on human knowledge?

Use your brain!
lol--that's what you gave as the source of the claim that naive realism claims infallibility.

So what's your alternate source?
When anyone referenced Wiki it is a starting point subject to further verifications and research. Note I added the other points which you ignored.
Your alternate source?
Post Reply