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

Re: Philosophical Realism and Antirealism as a False Dichotomy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:51 pm
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.
1. Yet in dividing "perception/gaining awareness" you create a dichotomy...unless I misread it and you are stating there is no division at all to which I would have to agree with you.

2. "All sets show connections, these connections allow for equivocation." The dog and cat both equivocate through being subsets of "mammal". Seemingly different phenomena equivocate through a common medium and only through this common medium. Without the common medium they do not equivocate. This common medium is a connection. Dually a set and its subset equate through the common medium which both share, without this common medium they do not equivocate. This is how "dog=mammal", both "mammal" and "dog" share common characteristics. The unity of two distinct elements occurs through a connection.

3. The connection of two different events results in one event as the summation of events. Events "x" and "y", as related, result in event "z". Simultaneousness is the observation of a series of events happening in a moment, a moment is a timeline given all moments can be broken down to further moments. A moment, such as the eating the pie example previously stated, is composed of meta events.

4. How can you call "awareness of awareness" a pseudo concept when you are in fact aware of your own awareness? Now you are just acting stupid.

5. So you are saying abstractions are not the result of concrete physical processes? So you are stating thought, embodied under abstractions, is a not a result of physical processes inside of the brain.

6. The abstract universal of a horse is composed of abstract particulars of horses. The abstract particular of a horse is composed of abstract universals of legs, hair, head, etc. Abstract universals and abstract particulars result in each other thus showing a false dichotomy.

7. A space void of forms does not necessiate knowing space full of forms prior. Only in labeling "space" as "space" one needs experience prior of forms as labeling is comparison through contrasting definitions. The absence of a label does not negate the experience. In experiencing blankness one is experiencing blankness. Space at it's roots is formlessness.

8. The number three as composed of the number one shows that three exists beyond one yet contains as an element "one" thus is connected to "one". A large circle with a smaller circle on the inside shows this same connection. So one can be connected to a phenomenon with that same phenomenon it is connected to existing beyond it. A phenomenon can be both dependent and independent of another phenomenon. Independence and dependence are 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 Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 1. Yet in dividing "perception/gaining awareness" you create a dichotomy...unless I misread it and you are stating there is no division at all to which I would have to agree with you.
Divisions are not necessarily dichotomies, although dichotomies are necessarily divisions. I pointed at differents instances or events during a process to emphasize they are not simultaneous. You said a dichotomy was created, but you're wrong.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 2. "All sets show connections, these connections allow for equivocation." The dog and cat both equivocate through being subsets of "mammal". Seemingly different phenomena equivocate through a common medium and only through this common medium. Without the common medium they do not equivocate. This common medium is a connection. Dually a set and its subset equate through the common medium which both share, without this common medium they do not equivocate. This is how "dog=mammal", both "mammal" and "dog" share common characteristics. The unity of two distinct elements occurs through a connection.
Connections between sets and subsets do not imply equivalence among them and the members of the subsets. Dogs can be subsets of the set mammals, and so can be cats, but that doesn't make cats identical to dogs.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 3. The connection of two different events results in one event as the summation of events. Events "x" and "y", as related, result in event "z". Simultaneousness is the observation of a series of events happening in a moment, a moment is a timeline given all moments can be broken down to further moments. A moment, such as the eating the pie example previously stated, is composed of meta events.
You can add all the events that you want and compose one event out of them, still the sub-events are not simultaneous.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 4. How can you call "awareness of awareness" a pseudo concept when you are in fact aware of your own awareness? Now you are just acting stupid.
It's a complete idiocy. One is aware of oneself, which is what we call self-awareness. It's like instead of saying you're standing on your feet, you said you're standing where you're standing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 5. So you are saying abstractions are not the result of concrete physical processes? So you are stating thought, embodied under abstractions, is a not a result of physical processes inside of the brain.
That's not even close to what I said. Abstractions are produced inside brains as representations of objects, that's what makes them different from the real objects, which are said to be concrete items. By definition, a concept is not concrete.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 6. The abstract universal of a horse is composed of abstract particulars of horses. The abstract particular of a horse is composed of abstract universals of legs, hair, head, etc. Abstract universals and abstract particulars result in each other thus showing a false dichotomy.
Nonsense!! The universal horse is itself an abstraction of concrete particular horses. The abstract particular horse is composed from the concrete horse, and the abstract particular legs, hair, head, etc., of that concrete horse are composed from its concrete particular legs, hair and head.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 7. A space void of forms does not necessiate knowing space full of forms prior. Only in labeling "space" as "space" one needs experience prior of forms as labeling is comparison through contrasting definitions. The absence of a label does not negate the experience. In experiencing blankness one is experiencing blankness. Space at it's roots is formlessness.
You cannot know, since we are all forced to experience space.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 8. The number three as composed of the number one shows that three exists beyond one yet contains as an element "one" thus is connected to "one". A large circle with a smaller circle on the inside shows this same connection. So one can be connected to a phenomenon with that same phenomenon it is connected to existing beyond it. A phenomenon can be both dependent and independent of another phenomenon. Independence and dependence are a false dichotomy.
More nonsense. The realist view sees the the physical world or universe as the domain of everything, the large circle. The smaller circles are objects inside that larger circle, and some of those objects are living beings, inside of which there are brains (another level of circles), which have conscious operations (one more level of circles). All of this leaves us with the subject/object and internal/external distinction. The typical antirealist view of subjective idealists sees consciousness as the large circle, eliminating all the domains that the realist put outside the conscious mind of the subjects. Every talk of objects and relations refer to things supposedly happening inside that consciousness. Whenever you peddle the view that there's no subject/object and internal/external distinction, you are peddling idealism and solipsism.
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: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 1. Yet in dividing "perception/gaining awareness" you create a dichotomy...unless I misread it and you are stating there is no division at all to which I would have to agree with you.
Divisions are not necessarily dichotomies, although dichotomies are necessarily divisions. I pointed at differents instances or events during a process to emphasize they are not simultaneous. You said a dichotomy was created, but you're wrong.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm 2. "All sets show connections, these connections allow for equivocation." The dog and cat both equivocate through being subsets of "mammal". Seemingly different phenomena equivocate through a common medium and only through this common medium. Without the common medium they do not equivocate. This common medium is a connection. Dually a set and its subset equate through the common medium which both share, without this common medium they do not equivocate. This is how "dog=mammal", both "mammal" and "dog" share common characteristics. The unity of two distinct elements occurs through a connection.
Connections between sets and subsets do not imply equivalence among them and the members of the subsets. Dogs can be subsets of the set mammals, and so can be cats, but that doesn't make cats identical to dogs.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm
3. The connection of two different events results in one event as the summation of events. Events "x" and "y", as related, result in event "z". Simultaneousness is the observation of a series of events happening in a moment, a moment is a timeline given all moments can be broken down to further moments. A moment, such as the eating the pie example previously stated, is composed of meta events.
You can add all the events that you want and compose one event out of them, still the sub-events are not simultaneous.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm
4. How can you call "awareness of awareness" a pseudo concept when you are in fact aware of your own awareness? Now you are just acting stupid.
It's a complete idiocy. One is aware of oneself, which is what we call self-awareness. It's like instead of saying you're standing on your feet, you said you're standing where you're standing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm
5. So you are saying abstractions are not the result of concrete physical processes? So you are stating thought, embodied under abstractions, is a not a result of physical processes inside of the brain.
That's not even close to what I said. Abstractions are produced inside brains as representations of objects, that's what makes them different from the real objects, which are said to be concrete items. By definition, a concept is not concrete.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm
6. The abstract universal of a horse is composed of abstract particulars of horses. The abstract particular of a horse is composed of abstract universals of legs, hair, head, etc. Abstract universals and abstract particulars result in each other thus showing a false dichotomy.
Nonsense!! The universal horse is itself an abstraction of concrete particular horses. The abstract particular horse is composed from the concrete horse, and the abstract particular legs, hair, head, etc., of that concrete horse are composed from its concrete particular legs, hair and head.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm
7. A space void of forms does not necessiate knowing space full of forms prior. Only in labeling "space" as "space" one needs experience prior of forms as labeling is comparison through contrasting definitions. The absence of a label does not negate the experience. In experiencing blankness one is experiencing blankness. Space at it's roots is formlessness.
You cannot know, since we are all forced to experience space.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:15 pm
8. The number three as composed of the number one shows that three exists beyond one yet contains as an element "one" thus is connected to "one". A large circle with a smaller circle on the inside shows this same connection. So one can be connected to a phenomenon with that same phenomenon it is connected to existing beyond it. A phenomenon can be both dependent and independent of another phenomenon. Independence and dependence are a false dichotomy.
More nonsense. The realist view sees the the physical world or universe as the domain of everything, the large circle. The smaller circles are objects inside that larger circle, and some of those objects are living beings, inside of which there are brains (another level of circles), which have conscious operations (one more level of circles). All of this leaves us with the subject/object and internal/external distinction. The typical antirealist view of subjective idealists sees consciousness as the large circle, eliminating all the domains that the realist put outside the conscious mind of the subjects. Every talk of objects and relations refer to things supposedly happening inside that consciousness. Whenever you peddle the view that there's no subject/object and internal/external distinction, you are peddling idealism and solipsism.
1. Yet you divided perception/gaining awareness into two facets...thus a dichotomy was created as one is not the other. You can go on dividing it further but any further terms results in further dichotomies considering there is the term and there is the negation of said term as another term. All division begins with a dichotomy.

2. Cats are identical to dogs through the set of mammals...."only" through the set known as mammals. Without this middle quality, ie mammals, cats and dogs do not equivocate.

3. But the one event is the connection of all events under it thus resulting in said event as a turning point. All events are turning points and as composed of further events are composed of further turning points. "Simultaneousness" is completely relative and only points to a fixed point of change, ie the "event". Change is composed of further change.

4. One is aware of awareness with this "awareness of awareness" being a concept.

5. "Abstractions are produced inside brains...." thus abstraction is inherently tied to the processes of the brain. As processes of the brain abstractions are thus concrete as the processes of the brain are concrete.

6. This is a relative argument in stating "Concrete horses --> Abstract horses" when it can be dually reversed in stating "Abstract Horses --> Concrete Horses". All concrete horses are grades of the universal abstract horse form. This universal formed can be broken down into the multitude of horses which exist. One form exists through many with this premise being valid given we see the same form repeat across the multitude of horses. This universal form allows the multitude of horses to exist.

7. Space at its root is formless, given an absence of stimuli (ie forms), all one would experience is blankness. This blankness is both a priori and a posteriori thus transcends both. With no senses one would experience formlessness as no definition in observations would result because there are no senses.

8. How can it be solipsism when the "I" is a small circle inside a larger circle represented as a "Universal" I? The small "I" exists as dependent upon the larger "I" but given it lacks all the qualities of the universal "I" it is independent as well as what the "I" is not (ie universal) defines the "I" as dually different. "I" and the "universal I" are both the same and different. They differ while sharing similar qualities. Dually one internal is another external and another external is another internal....any distinction is from a premise that is relative. From a premise of "the totality of being as one" all distinctions, and therefore dualisms, are exercises in relativity.

9. "The realist view sees the the physical world or universe as the domain of everything, the large circle."
"The typical antirealist view of subjective idealists sees consciousness as the large circle"

Consciousness as a physical process, ie subject to change, negates any difference between the realist and antirealist. Consciousness is a large circle which overlaps with another large circle (ie the 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: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:47 pm
1. Yet you divided perception/gaining awareness into two facets...thus a dichotomy was created as one is not the other. You can go on dividing it further but any further terms results in further dichotomies considering there is the term and there is the negation of said term as another term. All division begins with a dichotomy.

2. Cats are identical to dogs through the set of mammals...."only" through the set known as mammals. Without this middle quality, ie mammals, cats and dogs do not equivocate...
This has gotten tiresome. Having to give you a crash course on the most fundamental aspects of philosophy seems to be a waste of time, because you actually live at the antipodes of philosophy: you don't know what a dichotomy is, neither simultaneity, abstract, concrete, identity, equivalence, set theory, etc.

Maybe you should write your own dictionary of philosophical terms and call it: "The Completely Erroneous Guide to Philosophical Terms". It wouldn't fix you, but at least will guide us through your misled world of ideas.
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: Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:35 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:47 pm
1. Yet you divided perception/gaining awareness into two facets...thus a dichotomy was created as one is not the other. You can go on dividing it further but any further terms results in further dichotomies considering there is the term and there is the negation of said term as another term. All division begins with a dichotomy.

2. Cats are identical to dogs through the set of mammals...."only" through the set known as mammals. Without this middle quality, ie mammals, cats and dogs do not equivocate...
This has gotten tiresome. Having to give you a crash course on the most fundamental aspects of philosophy seems to be a waste of time, because you actually live at the antipodes of philosophy: you don't know what a dichotomy is, neither simultaneity, abstract, concrete, identity, equivalence, set theory, etc.

Maybe you should write your own dictionary of philosophical terms and call it: "The Completely Erroneous Guide to Philosophical Terms". It wouldn't fix you, but at least will guide us through your misled world of ideas.
Your failure to question the fundamentals of philosophy only leads to your confusing and contradictory stance. And what are the fundamentals of philosophy exactly other than contrasting perspectives? You contradict yourself in even stating that there are fundamentals as the nature of fundamentals only leads to a question mark in philosophy. The only "fundamentals" you push are your own subjective interpretations as your own perspective. The schools of philosophy all depend upon eachother for definition thus are muddled when one looks at them as a larger whole.



To address points 1 and 2, as you seem to wish to ignore the rest of the points:

1. If I divide a phenomenon a dichotomy occurs between what the phenomenon is and what it is not. This dualism between being and non-being is grounded as a dichotomy. Even if I divide a phenomenon into three parts a dichotomy arises where one part is what it is and the remaining phenomena, as a set, are not said phenomenon. All division begins with a dichotomy between "being" and "absence of being" and this dualistic division crosses all distinctions even if more than two are made.

So while you claim "division does not result in a dichotomy" but "a dichotomy results in division" I have to disagree and state the distinctions between these two statements are ambiguous considering the definition of "division" and the definition of "dichotomy" are both dependent upon the other.
This ambiguity allows one thing, ie "division", to equivocate with another thing, "ie dichotomy". Distinction as a dichotomy always has an element of mutually exclusiveness considering all similar phenomenon contain sub elements which are mutually exclusive. There may be phenomena x, y, and z which at first glance have similarities but upon further analysis contain elements which exclude eachother. To say "x" is to dually say "not x as y and z". To say "y" is to dually say "not y as x and z". To say "z" is to dually say "not z as y and x". Even amidst a trifold of distinctions a dualistic form of mutual exclusiveness occurs where you have "x" and "not x as ..."



2. The set of "mammals" contains within it "cats" and "dogs". This set is the overall qualities which allow for the subsets of "cats" and "dogs" to be similar. The set of "mammals" allows for distinct elements, "cats" and "dogs", to connect. "Cats" and "dogs" are both similar in the respect they are mammals, they equivocate only through being mammals. Without "mammals" they do not share any characteristics. There is no contradiction here.
Post Reply