Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind.



To say an object is dependent upon the mind is to in fact observe it as existing outside the mind given a principle which defined said object (and the mind by default) is what guides the mind (ie the principle exists beyond the mind as directing it much in the same manner of the mind being the subset of said principle).



The philosophical realist vs the antiphilosophical realist stance is a false dichotomy given not only do they define the mind (either apophatically by stating what the mind is not, or cataphatically by stating what the mind is) but both end in contradiction when left on there own terms.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind.
Strictly speaking, an object is not observed through the mind, but through one of our senses. Actually, an object can be detected by several of our senses at the same time. The physical organs involved in this operation then send signals to the central nervous system, where the brain synthetizes perceptual data into meaningful representations of the world. What is sensed is given the property of being outside of us, but not "outside the mind", which is an abstraction, but outside and independent of our bodies. As subjects, we understand our cognitive experience as attached to the body, and therefore think of the objects of perception as independent of our mind, but that's always a function of the experience of our physical bodies.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm
To say an object is dependent upon the mind is to in fact observe it as existing outside the mind given a principle which defined said object (and the mind by default) is what guides the mind (ie the principle exists beyond the mind as directing it much in the same manner of the mind being the subset of said principle).
Actually, our concept of the mind is tied to the notion of the embodied self, which is fed by our cognitive experience, relying heavily on our organs of perception and the feeling of our physical bodies as sentient organisms. So we understand mind as some processing power of our physical beings, outside of which is found the world and its objects, given the name of "reality" in everyday life. By perceiving such reality we acknowledge the powers of representation of our cognitive faculties, a sort of mediation between what appears to happen outside of our bodies and the "internal" mental constructions that point at them. Such connection implies a distinction between subject and object, between subjective representation and objective existence, and that is the only condition under which mind-dependency has any real significance.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm The philosophical realist vs the antiphilosophical realist stance is a false dichotomy given not only do they define the mind (either apophatically by stating what the mind is not, or cataphatically by stating what the mind is) but both end in contradiction when left on there own terms.
I suppose you mean the philosophical realist vs the philosophical anti-realist. You have defined realism from the point of view of idealism, departing from the idea of mind, but realists start from the common sense experience of the distinction between subjects and objects.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind.

To say an object is dependent upon the mind is to in fact observe it as existing outside the mind given a principle which defined said object (and the mind by default) is what guides the mind (ie the principle exists beyond the mind as directing it much in the same manner of the mind being the subset of said principle).

The philosophical realist vs the antiphilosophical realist stance is a false dichotomy given not only do they define the mind (either apophatically by stating what the mind is not, or cataphatically by stating what the mind is) but both end in contradiction when left on there own terms.
I don't agree with your take on the above.

The Philosophical Realist vs Anti-Philosophical dichotomy is a very necessary dichotomy for survival but one must NOT take it to be absolutely absolute [i.e. not as an "ism"] but rather understands its limitations and use it optimally.

Note this is Philosophical Realism, i.e.
  • 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 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.
    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
If the above is not insisted as an "-ism" [not as merely a practical necessity dependent on the right conditions and context], then there is a problem.
The extreme of this is related to the claim of an independent God or Soul.

Reality is a continuum of hierarchy and 'independent view of reality' will not work at certain more fundamental and sophisticated level of reality.
E.g. an independent view of reality as in Newtonian Science is effective for its relevant conditions and contexts but not effective at the Einsteinian or QM level of reality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind.
Strictly speaking, an object is not observed through the mind, but through one of our senses. Actually, an object can be detected by several of our senses at the same time. The physical organs involved in this operation then send signals to the central nervous system, where the brain synthetizes perceptual data into meaningful representations of the world. What is sensed is given the property of being outside of us, but not "outside the mind", which is an abstraction, but outside and independent of our bodies. As subjects, we understand our cognitive experience as attached to the body, and therefore think of the objects of perception as independent of our mind, but that's always a function of the experience of our physical bodies.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm
To say an object is dependent upon the mind is to in fact observe it as existing outside the mind given a principle which defined said object (and the mind by default) is what guides the mind (ie the principle exists beyond the mind as directing it much in the same manner of the mind being the subset of said principle).
Actually, our concept of the mind is tied to the notion of the embodied self, which is fed by our cognitive experience, relying heavily on our organs of perception and the feeling of our physical bodies as sentient organisms. So we understand mind as some processing power of our physical beings, outside of which is found the world and its objects, given the name of "reality" in everyday life. By perceiving such reality we acknowledge the powers of representation of our cognitive faculties, a sort of mediation between what appears to happen outside of our bodies and the "internal" mental constructions that point at them. Such connection implies a distinction between subject and object, between subjective representation and objective existence, and that is the only condition under which mind-dependency has any real significance.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm The philosophical realist vs the antiphilosophical realist stance is a false dichotomy given not only do they define the mind (either apophatically by stating what the mind is not, or cataphatically by stating what the mind is) but both end in contradiction when left on there own terms.
I suppose you mean the philosophical realist vs the philosophical anti-realist. You have defined realism from the point of view of idealism, departing from the idea of mind, but realists start from the common sense experience of the distinction between subjects and objects.
1. An object observed through the senses is observed through the mind as the mind is the interpretator of the senses. Senses do not exist without mind.

2. "The physical organs involved in this operation then send signals to the central nervous system, where the brain synthetizes perceptual data into meaningful representations of the world. What is sensed is given the property of being outside of us, but not "outside the mind", which is an abstraction, but outside and independent of our bodies." This results in a loop given the senses are observing the senses. This loop, as a form, exists as part of the mind but beyond it as it guides the mind.

3. There is no distinction between subject and object as the object which is observed through the subject reflects itself through the subject thus resulting in a unison.

4. To say the concept of mind is tied to the embodied self is to step back and look at the embodied self from a perspective which is not embodied. In observing a phenomenon one cannot observe what lies behind the act of observing the phenomenon.

5. The distinction between subject and object is a distinction between the mind and that which the mind observes.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind.

To say an object is dependent upon the mind is to in fact observe it as existing outside the mind given a principle which defined said object (and the mind by default) is what guides the mind (ie the principle exists beyond the mind as directing it much in the same manner of the mind being the subset of said principle).

The philosophical realist vs the antiphilosophical realist stance is a false dichotomy given not only do they define the mind (either apophatically by stating what the mind is not, or cataphatically by stating what the mind is) but both end in contradiction when left on there own terms.
I don't agree with your take on the above.

The Philosophical Realist vs Anti-Philosophical dichotomy is a very necessary dichotomy for survival but one must NOT take it to be absolutely absolute [i.e. not as an "ism"] but rather understands its limitations and use it optimally.

Note this is Philosophical Realism, i.e.
  • 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 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.
    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
If the above is not insisted as an "-ism" [not as merely a practical necessity dependent on the right conditions and context], then there is a problem.
The extreme of this is related to the claim of an independent God or Soul.

Reality is a continuum of hierarchy and 'independent view of reality' will not work at certain more fundamental and sophisticated level of reality.
E.g. an independent view of reality as in Newtonian Science is effective for its relevant conditions and contexts but not effective at the Einsteinian or QM level of reality.
1. The dichotomy is a result of localizing the mind, or rather perception, as "a" source of being. This dualism is inherent within the localization of any phenomenon where one thing is viewed as separate from the many. You are creating one dualism when in reality there are infinite dualisms.

The manifestation of any observation is the manifestation of a dualism given the object being observe exists in contrast to its surrounding context.

There is the thing being observed and the contrasting context which is not the thing.

The manifestation of the observed phenomenon and the contrasting context, which is not the phenomenon, exists as a dualism.

Dualism exists at the heart of any observation.

2. Dually you insist on God as being an independent entity which exists on its own terms. This leads to a contradiction when the totality of reality itself is viewed as God. God is the totality of being.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:39 pm To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind.
Strictly speaking, an object is not observed through the mind, but through one of our senses. Actually, an object can be detected by several of our senses at the same time. The physical organs involved in this operation then send signals to the central nervous system, where the brain synthetizes perceptual data into meaningful representations of the world. What is sensed is given the property of being outside of us, but not "outside the mind", which is an abstraction, but outside and independent of our bodies. As subjects, we understand our cognitive experience as attached to the body, and therefore think of the objects of perception as independent of our mind, but that's always a function of the experience of our physical bodies.
1. An object observed through the senses is observed through the mind as the mind is the interpretator of the senses. Senses do not exist without mind.
So, your statement is incorrect, just as I explained. The correct statement would be: "an object is observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system". There's no concrete thing called "mind", but the cognitive process by which these bodily organs do their functions is abstractly known as "mind".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 2.This results in a loop given the senses are observing the senses. This loop, as a form, exists as part of the mind but beyond it as it guides the mind.
This loop exists as part of the body. Minds happen in bodies.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 3. There is no distinction between subject and object as the object which is observed through the subject reflects itself through the subject thus resulting in a unison.
No. Objects appear as external to us. That's the basic understanding of how we perceive naturally, the common-sense, pre-theoretical view, and even anti-realists admit this. The issue of they claiming that our senses are fooling us and there's nothing "out there" is something different.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 4. To say the concept of mind is tied to the embodied self is to step back and look at the embodied self from a perspective which is not embodied. In observing a phenomenon one cannot observe what lies behind the act of observing the phenomenon.
We know we are observing from the point of view of our bodies. There cannot be any dispute on this. The stance the phenomenalists take is a theoretical view trying to deal with the common-sense view.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 5. The distinction between subject and object is a distinction between the mind and that which the mind observes.
No, there are no "minds" observing anything. The distinction between subject and object expresses the experience of bodies navigating through an external world full of objects independent of the observing body.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:55 am
Strictly speaking, an object is not observed through the mind, but through one of our senses. Actually, an object can be detected by several of our senses at the same time. The physical organs involved in this operation then send signals to the central nervous system, where the brain synthetizes perceptual data into meaningful representations of the world. What is sensed is given the property of being outside of us, but not "outside the mind", which is an abstraction, but outside and independent of our bodies. As subjects, we understand our cognitive experience as attached to the body, and therefore think of the objects of perception as independent of our mind, but that's always a function of the experience of our physical bodies.
1. An object observed through the senses is observed through the mind as the mind is the interpretator of the senses. Senses do not exist without mind.
So, your statement is incorrect, just as I explained. The correct statement would be: "an object is observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system". There's no concrete thing called "mind", but the cognitive process by which these bodily organs do their functions is abstractly known as "mind".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 2.This results in a loop given the senses are observing the senses. This loop, as a form, exists as part of the mind but beyond it as it guides the mind.
This loop exists as part of the body. Minds happen in bodies.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 3. There is no distinction between subject and object as the object which is observed through the subject reflects itself through the subject thus resulting in a unison.
No. Objects appear as external to us. That's the basic understanding of how we perceive naturally, the common-sense, pre-theoretical view, and even anti-realists admit this. The issue of they claiming that our senses are fooling us and there's nothing "out there" is something different.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 4. To say the concept of mind is tied to the embodied self is to step back and look at the embodied self from a perspective which is not embodied. In observing a phenomenon one cannot observe what lies behind the act of observing the phenomenon.
We know we are observing from the point of view of our bodies. There cannot be any dispute on this. The stance the phenomenalists take is a theoretical view trying to deal with the common-sense view.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 5. The distinction between subject and object is a distinction between the mind and that which the mind observes.
No, there are no "minds" observing anything. The distinction between subject and object expresses the experience of bodies navigating through an external world full of objects independent of the observing body.
1. False. An object being observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system results in the central nervous system observing itself through a loop. This loop guides the act of awareness. Thus leading to a principle form which guides awareness but is not limited to it. This is considering the nervous system observes itself "through" a loop thus necessitating the loop existing prior to the human body.

2. The cognitive processes through which something is observed is concrete, therefore from your stance mind is concrete, thus leading you to contradict yourself.

3. Minds happening through bodies is bodies observing bodies thus resulting in a loop again with this loop guiding the bodies but existing beyond them. That is unless your are equating the loop to a body in which case I partially agree. In observing an observation one cannot observe something behind that which is observed. In observing the self a state of formlessness exists behind said observation. The observation of the mind comes from a position of complete formlessness.

4. Objects do not appear external to us given they appear internally through the mind through not just memory but the actual interpretation of the senses themselves.

5. If we observe from the point of view of our bodies then we are observing this statement from another point of view from another body then another body then another body. In shorter terms in observing things from a point of view we observe this point of view from another point of view then from another then another ad-infinitum until not only is observation infinite but it is indefinite. As indefinite it is formless and without body.

6. That which the mind observes is that which is part of the mind given that which is observed exists as thought and memory. There is no distinction between external vs internal, it is a false dichotomy.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:55 am
Strictly speaking, an object is not observed through the mind, but through one of our senses. Actually, an object can be detected by several of our senses at the same time. The physical organs involved in this operation then send signals to the central nervous system, where the brain synthetizes perceptual data into meaningful representations of the world. What is sensed is given the property of being outside of us, but not "outside the mind", which is an abstraction, but outside and independent of our bodies. As subjects, we understand our cognitive experience as attached to the body, and therefore think of the objects of perception as independent of our mind, but that's always a function of the experience of our physical bodies.
1. An object observed through the senses is observed through the mind as the mind is the interpretator of the senses. Senses do not exist without mind.
So, your statement is incorrect, just as I explained. The correct statement would be: "an object is observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system". There's no concrete thing called "mind", but the cognitive process by which these bodily organs do their functions is abstractly known as "mind".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 2.This results in a loop given the senses are observing the senses. This loop, as a form, exists as part of the mind but beyond it as it guides the mind.
This loop exists as part of the body. Minds happen in bodies.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 3. There is no distinction between subject and object as the object which is observed through the subject reflects itself through the subject thus resulting in a unison.
No. Objects appear as external to us. That's the basic understanding of how we perceive naturally, the common-sense, pre-theoretical view, and even anti-realists admit this. The issue of they claiming that our senses are fooling us and there's nothing "out there" is something different.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 4. To say the concept of mind is tied to the embodied self is to step back and look at the embodied self from a perspective which is not embodied. In observing a phenomenon one cannot observe what lies behind the act of observing the phenomenon.
We know we are observing from the point of view of our bodies. There cannot be any dispute on this. The stance the phenomenalists take is a theoretical view trying to deal with the common-sense view.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:59 pm 5. The distinction between subject and object is a distinction between the mind and that which the mind observes.
No, there are no "minds" observing anything. The distinction between subject and object expresses the experience of bodies navigating through an external world full of objects independent of the observing body.
1. False. An object being observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system results in the central nervous system observing itself through a loop. This loop guides the act of awareness. Thus leading to a principle form which guides awareness but is not limited to it. This is considering the nervous system observes itself "through" a loop thus necessitating the loop existing prior to the human body.

2. The cognitive processes through which something is observed is concrete, therefore from your stance mind is concrete, thus leading you to contradict yourself.

3. Minds happening through bodies is bodies observing bodies thus resulting in a loop again with this loop guiding the bodies but existing beyond them. That is unless your are equating the loop to a body in which case I partially agree. In observing an observation one cannot observe something behind that which is observed. In observing the self a state of formlessness exists behind said observation. The observation of the mind comes from a position of complete formlessness.

4. Objects do not appear external to us given they appear internally through the mind through not just memory but the actual interpretation of the senses themselves.

5. If we observe from the point of view of our bodies then we are observing this statement from another point of view from another body then another body then another body. In shorter terms in observing things from a point of view we observe this point of view from another point of view then from another then another ad-infinitum until not only is observation infinite but it is indefinite. As indefinite it is formless and without body.

6. That which the mind observes is that which is part of the mind given that which is observed exists as thought and memory. There is no distinction between external vs internal, it is a false dichotomy.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 1. False. An object being observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system results in the central nervous system observing itself through a loop. This loop guides the act of awareness. Thus leading to a principle form which guides awareness but is not limited to it. This is considering the nervous system observes itself "through" a loop thus necessitating the loop existing prior to the human body.
A fallacy of ambiguity. You use the term "observe" twice in the same statement with the meaning of perceving in one instance and with the meaning of gaining awareness in the other. But the central nervous system does not perceive if not through the organs of perception. It certainly does not have another set of organs of perception to perceive itself or anything.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 2. The cognitive processes through which something is observed is concrete, therefore from your stance mind is concrete, thus leading you to contradict yourself.
A set of processes, the parts involved and their relationships, given a name and concept, are by definition an abstraction. We call mind to one such set of elements, but only the elements themselves are concrete.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 3. Minds happening through bodies is bodies observing bodies thus resulting in a loop again with this loop guiding the bodies but existing beyond them. That is unless your are equating the loop to a body in which case I partially agree. In observing an observation one cannot observe something behind that which is observed. In observing the self a state of formlessness exists behind said observation. The observation of the mind comes from a position of complete formlessness.
You're still confused and using the fallacy of ambiguity, which leads you to state something as absurd as "observing and observation".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 4. Objects do not appear external to us given they appear internally through the mind through not just memory but the actual interpretation of the senses themselves.
The whole concept of appearance and mediation (the reason you must use the term "through") implies externality to our perceptual and cognitive apparatus, as well as existence outside of our bodies. That's what makes them "objects". The standard common-sense view (our basic, pre-theoeretical experience) is that of a world "out there". The concept of mind is a later development constructed through reasoning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 5. If we observe from the point of view of our bodies then we are observing this statement from another point of view from another body then another body then another body. In shorter terms in observing things from a point of view we observe this point of view from another point of view then from another then another ad-infinitum until not only is observation infinite but it is indefinite. As indefinite it is formless and without body.
This in entirely non-sequitur. One or many bodies can observe x, and if we admit that only conscious bodies with organs of perception can observe, then there's a limited set of bodies that can observe x. No reason to infer the set of perceiving bodies is unlimited.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 6. That which the mind observes is that which is part of the mind given that which is observed exists as thought and memory. There is no distinction between external vs internal, it is a false dichotomy.
Again, properly speaking, the brain does not perceive, it receives signals from the organs of perception to which it is connected. The organs of perception capture the sense data received from the environment in which the organism dwells, and the organism is perfectly aware that the origin of these stimuli is that environment, which appears to these senses as external to the organism.

It is baffling that while trying to present the case against the realism/anti-realism dichothomy, you rely on it and take a stand for one side. What you actually want to advocate for is: "abandon realism and stay with anti-realism" and trying to conceal your bias, which you have done poorly.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 1. False. An object being observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system results in the central nervous system observing itself through a loop. This loop guides the act of awareness. Thus leading to a principle form which guides awareness but is not limited to it. This is considering the nervous system observes itself "through" a loop thus necessitating the loop existing prior to the human body.
A fallacy of ambiguity. You use the term "observe" twice in the same statement with the meaning of perceving in one instance and with the meaning of gaining awareness in the other. But the central nervous system does not perceive if not through the organs of perception. It certainly does not have another set of organs of perception to perceive itself or anything.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 2. The cognitive processes through which something is observed is concrete, therefore from your stance mind is concrete, thus leading you to contradict yourself.
A set of processes, the parts involved and their relationships, given a name and concept, are by definition an abstraction. We call mind to one such set of elements, but only the elements themselves are concrete.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 3. Minds happening through bodies is bodies observing bodies thus resulting in a loop again with this loop guiding the bodies but existing beyond them. That is unless your are equating the loop to a body in which case I partially agree. In observing an observation one cannot observe something behind that which is observed. In observing the self a state of formlessness exists behind said observation. The observation of the mind comes from a position of complete formlessness.
You're still confused and using the fallacy of ambiguity, which leads you to state something as absurd as "observing and observation".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 4. Objects do not appear external to us given they appear internally through the mind through not just memory but the actual interpretation of the senses themselves.
The whole concept of appearance and mediation (the reason you must use the term "through") implies externality to our perceptual and cognitive apparatus, as well as existence outside of our bodies. That's what makes them "objects". The standard common-sense view (our basic, pre-theoeretical experience) is that of a world "out there". The concept of mind is a later development constructed through reasoning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm
5. If we observe from the point of view of our bodies then we are observing this statement from another point of view from another body then another body then another body. In shorter terms in observing things from a point of view we observe this point of view from another point of view then from another then another ad-infinitum until not only is observation infinite but it is indefinite. As indefinite it is formless and without body.
This in entirely non-sequitur. One or many bodies can observe x, and if we admit that only conscious bodies with organs of perception can observe, then there's a limited set of bodies that can observe x. No reason to infer the set of perceiving bodies is unlimited.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm 6. That which the mind observes is that which is part of the mind given that which is observed exists as thought and memory. There is no distinction between external vs internal, it is a false dichotomy.
Again, properly speaking, the brain does not perceive, it receives signals from the organs of perception to which it is connected. The organs of perception capture the sense data received from the environment in which the organism dwells, and the organism is perfectly aware that the origin of these stimuli is that environment, which appears to these senses as external to the organism.

It is baffling that while trying to present the case against the realism/anti-realism dichothomy, you rely on it and take a stand for one side. What you actually want to advocate for is: "abandon realism and stay with anti-realism" and trying to conceal your bias, which you have done poorly.
1. False dichotomy, "perceiving" is "gaining awareness".

2. What is sensed through the organs of perception is perceived through the mind. I observe something in real time and the single moment, which instantly becomes the past, is perceived through memory.

3. You ignored: "An object being observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system results in the central nervous system observing itself through a loop. This loop guides the act of awareness. Thus leading to a principle form which guides awareness but is not limited to it. This is considering the nervous system observes itself "through" a loop thus necessitating the loop existing prior to the human body."

The loop is the means through which observation occurs as it is the form of observation.

4. The parts and there relationships occur empirically thus are concrete. You contradict yourself given the concreteness of these processes are the same thing as the mind, thus the mind is concrete.

5. False to observe an observation is to observe the act of observing. This form of self reflection necessitates a circular form through which observation occurs thus leaving the mind as existing beyond the physical, and changing, aspects of the body.

6. "through" necessitates a connection as "x" exists through "y". This connection necessitates no dualism of internal or external but only the manifestation of being. Connection implies "one" being.

7. The concept of the mind cannot be observed later through reasoning alone as reasoning is a subset of the mind, this would leave us with the mind observing itself. The concept of mind cannot occur after reasoning as the mind exists through reasoning.

8. You are assuming awareness can only occur through sensory organs and this is false. With the absence of the five senses one observes formless empty space. Observation becomes empty of form but exists none the less. Dually the set of percieving bodies is unlimited given one observing an angle of observation does so from another angle of observation with this in turn occuring from another angle of observation and so on and so forth. The continuity of observing one angle of observation from another is indefinite as it is always changing number.

9. False I do not stand for anti realism as it contradicts itself as well. "In anti-realism, this external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism To observe the self from another angle is to fragment the self leaving one "self" extraneous to another given the self now appears as an object. This necessitates an external reality derived from an internal reality.

On one hand realism results in anti realism and in another anti-realism results in realism. One perspective results in another thus negating the dichotomy of internal vs external.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Conde Lucanor »

No one is talking about dichotomies, but about distinct elements. And when referring to the whole process of humans gaining awareness of reality through perception, the issue over which the debate on realism/anti-realism stands, sensation, as the moment when the organism gets in touch with the environment, is clearly a distinct moment separated from the moment of awareness of that stimulus. In other words, in the case of seeing, the moment of input when the retina receives stimulus is different from the moment of transmission of that information through the optical nerve and the output when that information is processed by the brain. One then not only see a tree, but see something AS a tree. It might be considered as stages in one singular process of perception, but the distinctions are necessary if we are discussing the relations between the mind and perceived objects. Again, the mind (the brain) does not participate in the input stage, therefore, properly speaking, it does not "perceive".

Since I have not received counterarguments, I will highlight again that "mind" is just a concept, an abstraction of what the central nervous system does. You obviously have no idea of the concept of abstraction, assuming that the sum of concrete parts or singular elements (including things, events and relationships) of a complex reality, make it necessarily another particular, concrete reality, which is obviously false. "Mind" is no concrete particular, just as "aviation" is no concrete particular.

If the concept "mind" necessitates reasoning to be produced, then one should ask what produces reasoning and concepts such as "mind". The only available answer is a physical body, which includes the organs of perception through which reality is mediated. It is simply not possible to have awareness of reality, not even self-awareness, without interaction with the environment in which the organism dwells. Of course, the body itself is what precisely provides that continuous connection that allows our awareness of being in the world. The idea of a self-perceived disembodied self is entirely ridiculous and it does not describe our basic common understanding of reality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:33 am No one is talking about dichotomies, but about distinct elements. And when referring to the whole process of humans gaining awareness of reality through perception, the issue over which the debate on realism/anti-realism stands, sensation, as the moment when the organism gets in touch with the environment, is clearly a distinct moment separated from the moment of awareness of that stimulus. In other words, in the case of seeing, the moment of input when the retina receives stimulus is different from the moment of transmission of that information through the optical nerve and the output when that information is processed by the brain. One then not only see a tree, but see something AS a tree. It might be considered as stages in one singular process of perception, but the distinctions are necessary if we are discussing the relations between the mind and perceived objects. Again, the mind (the brain) does not participate in the input stage, therefore, properly speaking, it does not "perceive".

Since I have not received counterarguments, I will highlight again that "mind" is just a concept, an abstraction of what the central nervous system does. You obviously have no idea of the concept of abstraction, assuming that the sum of concrete parts or singular elements (including things, events and relationships) of a complex reality, make it necessarily another particular, concrete reality, which is obviously false. "Mind" is no concrete particular, just as "aviation" is no concrete particular.

If the concept "mind" necessitates reasoning to be produced, then one should ask what produces reasoning and concepts such as "mind". The only available answer is a physical body, which includes the organs of perception through which reality is mediated. It is simply not possible to have awareness of reality, not even self-awareness, without interaction with the environment in which the organism dwells. Of course, the body itself is what precisely provides that continuous connection that allows our awareness of being in the world. The idea of a self-perceived disembodied self is entirely ridiculous and it does not describe our basic common understanding of reality.
1. False, the OP is about dichotomies. Antirealism and Realism both result in the other.

2. Sensation is not distinct from awareness as sensation is experience with experience being a subset of awareness.

3. The moment of input from the retina is directly connected to the moment of transmission to the brain.

4. To be aware of awareness is not limited to sensory input but is rather awareness existing through a looped form through which it exists. Awareness is thus subject to form.

5. To say "mind is just a concept" is to result in it as a concrete entity under your perspective given the concept is the interrelations of neural impulses which are in fact concrete.

6. All abstractions exist as the summation of parts. This summation of parts in turn acts as another part. An example is the concept of horse. This concept exists as a summation of atoms with the horse itself being part of something greater, ie a field.

7. Awareness exists can exist independent of sensory input as an absence of sensory input results in the awareness of space. The observation of space is not limited to sensory input.

8. The self reflective nature of saying awareness is grounded in "x", when one is composed of "x", results in "x" being aware of itself thus resulting in a loop. This loop is the means through which consciousness exists thus necessitating a form through which consciousness exists. This form is not entirely physical.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm
1. False, the OP is about dichotomies. Antirealism and Realism both result in the other.
First you said there was a false dichotomy between "perceiving" and "gaining awareness", I responded that I didn't propose a dichotomy (mutually exclusive elements). Now you say the OP mentions the Antirealism/ Realism dichotomy. That's not a argument against my response.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 2. Sensation is not distinct from awareness as sensation is experience with experience being a subset of awareness.
A subset of a set is distinct from the parent set it is related to. The elements of the eye are a subset of the whole visual system, but they eye alone is not the visual system. The instance of sensation might be a subset of the whole experience of seeing as gaining awareness, but they are not the same, even though they are still related.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 3. The moment of input from the retina is directly connected to the moment of transmission to the brain.
By definition, a transmission cannot be strictly simultaneous. You must go from point A to point B and travel through the appropriate channel. No matter how short that interval of time is.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 4. To be aware of awareness is not limited to sensory input but is rather awareness existing through a looped form through which it exists. Awareness is thus subject to form.
Nonsense! Aren't you Deepak Chopra, by any chance?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 5. To say "mind is just a concept" is to result in it as a concrete entity under your perspective given the concept is the interrelations of neural impulses which are in fact concrete.
Ha! No sophistry and nonsensical philosophical gymnastics will transform an abstract concept into a concrete entity. That's called reification and it doesn't work.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 6. All abstractions exist as the summation of parts. This summation of parts in turn acts as another part. An example is the concept of horse. This concept exists as a summation of atoms with the horse itself being part of something greater, ie a field.
You have no idea what abstraction means. It is a process that comprises combination, relation and synthesis, not simple sums.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 7. Awareness exists can exist independent of sensory input as an absence of sensory input results in the awareness of space. The observation of space is not limited to sensory input.
Observation is necessarily related to senses. There's no evidence, because there's no way to create such empirical conditions, that absence of sensory input gets you awareness of space. If you had sensed space before the experiment fails.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 8. The self reflective nature of saying awareness is grounded in "x", when one is composed of "x", results in "x" being aware of itself thus resulting in a loop. This loop is the means through which consciousness exists thus necessitating a form through which consciousness exists. This form is not entirely physical.
You're just peddling solipsism. Being that the case, you think you're debating with your own consciousness here, immersed in an eternal loop going on only in your mind, the only mind that could exist, since there's only your self-awareness. I instantly refute your solipsism by being aware of myself.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm
1. False, the OP is about dichotomies. Antirealism and Realism both result in the other.
First you said there was a false dichotomy between "perceiving" and "gaining awareness", I responded that I didn't propose a dichotomy (mutually exclusive elements). Now you say the OP mentions the Antirealism/ Realism dichotomy. That's not a argument against my response.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 2. Sensation is not distinct from awareness as sensation is experience with experience being a subset of awareness.
A subset of a set is distinct from the parent set it is related to. The elements of the eye are a subset of the whole visual system, but they eye alone is not the visual system. The instance of sensation might be a subset of the whole experience of seeing as gaining awareness, but they are not the same, even though they are still related.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 3. The moment of input from the retina is directly connected to the moment of transmission to the brain.
By definition, a transmission cannot be strictly simultaneous. You must go from point A to point B and travel through the appropriate channel. No matter how short that interval of time is.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 4. To be aware of awareness is not limited to sensory input but is rather awareness existing through a looped form through which it exists. Awareness is thus subject to form.
Nonsense! Aren't you Deepak Chopra, by any chance?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 5. To say "mind is just a concept" is to result in it as a concrete entity under your perspective given the concept is the interrelations of neural impulses which are in fact concrete.
Ha! No sophistry and nonsensical philosophical gymnastics will transform an abstract concept into a concrete entity. That's called reification and it doesn't work.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 6. All abstractions exist as the summation of parts. This summation of parts in turn acts as another part. An example is the concept of horse. This concept exists as a summation of atoms with the horse itself being part of something greater, ie a field.
You have no idea what abstraction means. It is a process that comprises combination, relation and synthesis, not simple sums.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 7. Awareness exists can exist independent of sensory input as an absence of sensory input results in the awareness of space. The observation of space is not limited to sensory input.
Observation is necessarily related to senses. There's no evidence, because there's no way to create such empirical conditions, that absence of sensory input gets you awareness of space. If you had sensed space before the experiment fails.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 pm 8. The self reflective nature of saying awareness is grounded in "x", when one is composed of "x", results in "x" being aware of itself thus resulting in a loop. This loop is the means through which consciousness exists thus necessitating a form through which consciousness exists. This form is not entirely physical.
You're just peddling solipsism. Being that the case, you think you're debating with your own consciousness here, immersed in an eternal loop going on only in your mind, the only mind that could exist, since there's only your self-awareness. I instantly refute your solipsism by being aware of myself.
1. "No one is talking about dichotomies" is what you stated, yet this OP is about dichotomies (specifically Realism and Antirealism) and how said dichotomies are false.

2. A subset of a set is part of the set it is related to thus shares mutual elements. An eye shares the same nature of cells found in the remaining portions of the visualization portions of the body. The set of mammal contains within it elements found within the subset of dog with dog containing within it elements of the set of mammal. A subset is circle inside another circle with the larger circle being the set. The set and subset have mutual relations, thus similar qualities. All sets show connections, these connections allow for equivocation.

3. "The moment of input from the retina is directly connected to the moment of transmission to the brain." One moment leads to another thus is connected. The input from the retina is a cause. The transmission is an effect.

Dually: A moment is a series of events summated as a singular entity as a moment is composed of further sub-moments. An example would be the moment "x" ate the pie: "X" picked up a piece of the pie with a fork, "x" put the fork to "x's" mouth, "x" put the food in "x's" mouth, "x" chewed, "x" swallowed".

4. False, to be aware of awareness does not require sensory input as one stuck floating in a void is aware they are aware...this self awareness is a loop with this loop being a non-physical form through which awareness occurs.

5. False, if all is subject to a physical nature then the concept is a series of nerves responding to eachother....this series of nerves responding to eachother is the concept thus the concept is concrete.

6. Combination is synthesis and synthesis is relations. The relations of multiple entities summate as a singular phenomenon because the parts are working together as one.

7. A sensory deprivation tank leads one experiencing a space void of forms.

8. I am not peddling solipsism, I am saying there are qualities of consciousness which extend beyond the physical. Me being aware of myself and you being aware of yourself both require a self reflective loop form through which consciousness occurs. If anything I am arguing there is being beyond a set of or singular mind(s).
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm
1. "No one is talking about dichotomies" is what you stated, yet this OP is about dichotomies (specifically Realism and Antirealism) and how said dichotomies are false.
How many times do I have to explain this? I didn't expect from you to have great reasoning skills, but I did expect that at least you had renough reading and comprehension skills as to be able to focus on what's being discussed. My statement "no one is talking about dichotomies" was in direct response to the dichotomies you claimed I was proposing: perception/gaining awareness.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm 2. A subset of a set is part of the set it is related to thus shares mutual elements. An eye shares the same nature of cells found in the remaining portions of the visualization portions of the body. The set of mammal contains within it elements found within the subset of dog with dog containing within it elements of the set of mammal. A subset is circle inside another circle with the larger circle being the set. The set and subset have mutual relations, thus similar qualities. All sets show connections, these connections allow for equivocation.
You said that Y being a subset of X meant that X and Y are not distinct elements, but that's evidently false. That they are related doesn't mean they are one and the same.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm 3. "The moment of input from the retina is directly connected to the moment of transmission to the brain." One moment leads to another thus is connected. The input from the retina is a cause. The transmission is an effect.
Connection between events doesn't imply simultaneity of events, which is what you were claiming.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm Dually: A moment is a series of events summated as a singular entity as a moment is composed of further sub-moments. An example would be the moment "x" ate the pie: "X" picked up a piece of the pie with a fork, "x" put the fork to "x's" mouth, "x" put the food in "x's" mouth, "x" chewed, "x" swallowed".
A series of events imply a succession of events, therefore they are not simulatenous.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm 4. False, to be aware of awareness does not require sensory input as one stuck floating in a void is aware they are aware...this self awareness is a loop with this loop being a non-physical form through which awareness occurs.
Awareness of awareness is a pseudoconcept. Nonsense.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm 5. False, if all is subject to a physical nature then the concept is a series of nerves responding to eachother....this series of nerves responding to eachother is the concept thus the concept is concrete.
The refutation stands: no sophistry and nonsensical philosophical gymnastics will transform an abstract concept into a concrete entity. That's called reification and it doesn't work.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm 6. Combination is synthesis and synthesis is relations. The relations of multiple entities summate as a singular phenomenon because the parts are working together as one.
You're just confusing abstract singulars and abstract universals. There is the abstraction involved in the concept "horse", but there's also the abstraction of a particular entity I perceive.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm 7. A sensory deprivation tank leads one experiencing a space void of forms.
If the subject has experienced space before, it is because he has had the corresponding sensory inputs. In order to deny this while submitting evidence, you would have to devise conditions where a subject has no previous experiences, but that is not possible.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm 8. I am not peddling solipsism, I am saying there are qualities of consciousness which extend beyond the physical. Me being aware of myself and you being aware of yourself both require a self reflective loop form through which consciousness occurs. If anything I am arguing there is being beyond a set of or singular mind(s).
When you refer to the "qualities of consciousness", and things existing "beyond", you're either referring to something that is independent of you, which immediately implies the distinction subject/object and internal/external that you were trying to deny in the first place, or you can instead deny there are such distinctions and refer to something that is dependent of you, a "no-beyond", which immediately puts you in solipsist heaven.
Post Reply