Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:21 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:04 pm You see intelligence as dependent on function rather than function depending on intelligence.
The non-human depends on the logos and logoi of the Greeks as does humans.
AI depends on human intelligence for its existence. The worldwide web is connected as it imitates nature.
The principle from the colored statement is;
X depend on Y,
which imply causality.

The problem is such causality lead to an infinite regression and there is no way one will be able to know exactly what is the ultimate Y, in this case your ultimate 'logos'.
Thus that leads to a never-ending-story which is unrealistic.
Kant may be right in questioning the existence of the moon, if per QM no event happens without an observer.
Philosophical realism is an understanding that what we believe or know now is just an approximation of reality. The existence or non- existence of the moon is dependent on the accuracy and fullness of understanding being improved. The perspective of philosophical realists in no way contradicts that assessment. It is an endorsement of it.
As I had stated Philosophical Realism [PR] is unrealistic.
With PR there is always a reality-gap between what is known-approximately and reality.
As such this is a never-ending-story which is unrealistic.

In the case of the anti-Philosophical Realism [Kantian] what is really-real is what is emergent, cognized, realized and then known within the individual[s]. This is Empirical Realism as opposed to Empirical Idealism of PR.
In this case there is no reality-Gap since no external reality to be approximated is speculated.

Btw have you read Rorty's [.. i mentioned previously]
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature
This is about Philosophical Realism's mere mirroring of nature [in parallel] and never realizing it as real.
It is similar to the problems faced by the parallel Corresponding Theory to Truth.
Causality does not imply infinite regression. Within a system of forces, expulsion and attraction balance each other out. What is within a system is contained within the system, it has its start and finish within the system. it cannot infinitely progress or infinitely regress beyond the system it arose in. Science and philosophy are limited to the system, an ultimate cause is not within their province, all they have to understand is the system. Maybe then the topic of an ultimate cause would be pertinent.

Philosophical realism is not unrealistic. There is a reality gap only until abstract thought and ideas; what is mentally empirical is correlated with what is sensory empirical and consensus is found between them. Idealism and realism are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. Science knows about resonance but not what it is. There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.

There is ‘as above so below’ and ‘as within so without.’ If external reality is the equivalent of the moon’s reflection in a lake, it must mirror something. Otherwise it would not be a reflection.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 6:59 pm Causality does not imply infinite regression. Within a system of forces, expulsion and attraction balance each other out. What is within a system is contained within the system, it has its start and finish within the system. it cannot infinitely progress or infinitely regress beyond the system it arose in. Science and philosophy are limited to the system, an ultimate cause is not within their province, all they have to understand is the system. Maybe then the topic of an ultimate cause would be pertinent.
Causality by default will lead to an infinite regression in searching for the first cause which is an impossibility to be real.
Even within system, there is an infinite regression as to what is the prior or further system.
The digestive system is within the human system, within the Earth, within the universe, galaxy, etc. to an infinite regression.

One can understand the principles of System Theory but the specific systems lead to an infinite regress.
Philosophical realism is not unrealistic. There is a reality gap only until abstract thought and ideas; what is mentally empirical is correlated with what is sensory empirical and consensus is found between them. Idealism and realism are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. Science knows about resonance but not what it is. There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.
Philosophical realism [PR] is unrealistic because it is grounded mainly on an assumption thus cannot be realistic.
If one start from the top-down approach [anti-philosophical realism] there is no assumption as with PR, thus it is realistic to verifiable and justifiable empirical evidence. To grasp this one has to shift to the 'emergent' paradigm rather than the independent-reality paradigm. [this is the critical knot that need to be untangled]
There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.
On what real basis that you can show There has to be ..
It is only when you make an assumption of it that you claim 'there has to be ..' thus that is begging the question.

Re anti-PR There is no need for a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with.
We do have a real world that is verified and justified empirically and philosophically as realized.

There is ‘as above so below’ and ‘as within so without.’ If external reality is the equivalent of the moon’s reflection in a lake, it must mirror something. Otherwise it would not be a reflection.
As stated your above inference is merely based on an assumption that is an external reality to be mirrored.
The point is this assumption is 'programmed' evolutionarily as necessary but only in a narrow perspective but not in the wider real perspective.
This issue is very psychological and has to be dealt with from the psychological perspective which the Buddhists and the likes are doing it.

Note this from Rorty in,
ON PHILOSOPHY and PHILOSOPHERS
Unpublished Papers, 1960–2000
RICHARD RORTY
Ed. W. P. MAŁECKI, CHRIS VOPARIL
The copy-theory of ideas is a theory which is common to all philosophers from Descartes through Hume.
According to this theory, we know the truth only when our ideas accurately copy things.
But, as Descartes and Berkeley made clear, we never are in a position to check our ideas against things.
You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Therefore, it seems that we must choose between either Hume’s skepticism or a metaphysical guarantee that some of our ideas really do copy things accurately.
This kind of metaphysical guarantee was what was provided by Descartes’s God, Spinoza’s theory of the two parallel attributes, and Leibniz’s preestablished harmony.
The copy-theory of ideas underlies Philosophical Realism's assumption there are things independent of the human conditions which the mind can copy [corresponds].
The limitation is, as Rorty indicated,

You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:52 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 6:59 pm Causality does not imply infinite regression. Within a system of forces, expulsion and attraction balance each other out. What is within a system is contained within the system, it has its start and finish within the system. it cannot infinitely progress or infinitely regress beyond the system it arose in. Science and philosophy are limited to the system, an ultimate cause is not within their province, all they have to understand is the system. Maybe then the topic of an ultimate cause would be pertinent.
Causality by default will lead to an infinite regression in searching for the first cause which is an impossibility to be real.
Even within system, there is an infinite regression as to what is the prior or further system.
The digestive system is within the human system, within the Earth, within the universe, galaxy, etc. to an infinite regression.

One can understand the principles of System Theory but the specific systems lead to an infinite regress.
Philosophical realism is not unrealistic. There is a reality gap only until abstract thought and ideas; what is mentally empirical is correlated with what is sensory empirical and consensus is found between them. Idealism and realism are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. Science knows about resonance but not what it is. There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.
Philosophical realism [PR] is unrealistic because it is grounded mainly on an assumption thus cannot be realistic.
If one start from the top-down approach [anti-philosophical realism] there is no assumption as with PR, thus it is realistic to verifiable and justifiable empirical evidence. To grasp this one has to shift to the 'emergent' paradigm rather than the independent-reality paradigm. [this is the critical knot that need to be untangled]
There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.
On what real basis that you can show There has to be ..
It is only when you make an assumption of it that you claim 'there has to be ..' thus that is begging the question.

Re anti-PR There is no need for a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with.
We do have a real world that is verified and justified empirically and philosophically as realized.

There is ‘as above so below’ and ‘as within so without.’ If external reality is the equivalent of the moon’s reflection in a lake, it must mirror something. Otherwise it would not be a reflection.
As stated your above inference is merely based on an assumption that is an external reality to be mirrored.
The point is this assumption is 'programmed' evolutionarily as necessary but only in a narrow perspective but not in the wider real perspective.
This issue is very psychological and has to be dealt with from the psychological perspective which the Buddhists and the likes are doing it.

Note this from Rorty in,
ON PHILOSOPHY and PHILOSOPHERS
Unpublished Papers, 1960–2000
RICHARD RORTY
Ed. W. P. MAŁECKI, CHRIS VOPARIL
The copy-theory of ideas is a theory which is common to all philosophers from Descartes through Hume.
According to this theory, we know the truth only when our ideas accurately copy things.
But, as Descartes and Berkeley made clear, we never are in a position to check our ideas against things.
You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Therefore, it seems that we must choose between either Hume’s skepticism or a metaphysical guarantee that some of our ideas really do copy things accurately.
This kind of metaphysical guarantee was what was provided by Descartes’s God, Spinoza’s theory of the two parallel attributes, and Leibniz’s preestablished harmony.
The copy-theory of ideas underlies Philosophical Realism's assumption there are things independent of the human conditions which the mind can copy [corresponds].
The limitation is, as Rorty indicated,

You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Infinite regress of systems within a system is possible up to a point, they cannot regress beyond the overall System. The parts can regress into the components of the whole System but cannot regress beyond the boundary of the whole System. In universal terms the ethereal is the boundary line for philosophy and science. Theology and the fantasy genres go there in thought and perception but the components of the physical universe end there to the best of our knowledge.

There is philosophical realism which is valid and philosophical anti-realism which is not. An example of philosophical realism would be Michael Faraday’s theory that all forces can be reduced to one force. Based on that theory he made many amazing discoveries. He reached a roadblock with gravity and that roadblock still holds. Still based on the results he got his theory was based on philosophical realism. Philosophical anti-realism is rampant, it is not based on any theory that can be evaluated. It is based on active reason; rationalizing, with no guidance from passive reason; intuitive perception.

Rorty’s theory could be classified as philosophical anti-realism. Ideas do not copy things, although we can check ideas against things, Faraday did it (his theory that all forces could be reduced to one force) and he had success with it. With just passive reason: thought experiments and intuitive perception the ancient Greeks did very well.

The problem with the anti-PR perspective is that it divides reality, where everything is resonant, separating out the mental as if it were in another dimension and totally disconnected from the rest of reality. We do not have to leap out of our minds to access reality, we are in it. What can be accessed metaphysically is valid.

If there is just active reason; speculation without intuitive perception in our assessments of reality, the veracity of the theory rests on just that. The likelihood of it being borne out is like throwing darts, active reasoning alone is likely to miss. The two modes in use are better positioned to hit the bullseye.

There is no reason to be a skeptic in relation to theories based on PR. If they do not past the test we know they are just speculation based on active reason alone. If they past the test we know that Aristotle’s two modes of reasoning have been operative, not just one. There is proof in realizing and further proof in testing. There is no reason to be skeptical except in the case of philosophical anti-realism which as indicated is speculation based on nothing.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:52 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 6:59 pm Causality does not imply infinite regression. Within a system of forces, expulsion and attraction balance each other out. What is within a system is contained within the system, it has its start and finish within the system. it cannot infinitely progress or infinitely regress beyond the system it arose in. Science and philosophy are limited to the system, an ultimate cause is not within their province, all they have to understand is the system. Maybe then the topic of an ultimate cause would be pertinent.
Causality by default will lead to an infinite regression in searching for the first cause which is an impossibility to be real.
Even within system, there is an infinite regression as to what is the prior or further system.
The digestive system is within the human system, within the Earth, within the universe, galaxy, etc. to an infinite regression.

One can understand the principles of System Theory but the specific systems lead to an infinite regress.
Philosophical realism is not unrealistic. There is a reality gap only until abstract thought and ideas; what is mentally empirical is correlated with what is sensory empirical and consensus is found between them. Idealism and realism are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. Science knows about resonance but not what it is. There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.
Philosophical realism [PR] is unrealistic because it is grounded mainly on an assumption thus cannot be realistic.
If one start from the top-down approach [anti-philosophical realism] there is no assumption as with PR, thus it is realistic to verifiable and justifiable empirical evidence. To grasp this one has to shift to the 'emergent' paradigm rather than the independent-reality paradigm. [this is the critical knot that need to be untangled]
There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.
On what real basis that you can show There has to be ..
It is only when you make an assumption of it that you claim 'there has to be ..' thus that is begging the question.

Re anti-PR There is no need for a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with.
We do have a real world that is verified and justified empirically and philosophically as realized.

There is ‘as above so below’ and ‘as within so without.’ If external reality is the equivalent of the moon’s reflection in a lake, it must mirror something. Otherwise it would not be a reflection.
As stated your above inference is merely based on an assumption that is an external reality to be mirrored.
The point is this assumption is 'programmed' evolutionarily as necessary but only in a narrow perspective but not in the wider real perspective.
This issue is very psychological and has to be dealt with from the psychological perspective which the Buddhists and the likes are doing it.

Note this from Rorty in,
ON PHILOSOPHY and PHILOSOPHERS
Unpublished Papers, 1960–2000
RICHARD RORTY
Ed. W. P. MAŁECKI, CHRIS VOPARIL
The copy-theory of ideas is a theory which is common to all philosophers from Descartes through Hume.
According to this theory, we know the truth only when our ideas accurately copy things.
But, as Descartes and Berkeley made clear, we never are in a position to check our ideas against things.
You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Therefore, it seems that we must choose between either Hume’s skepticism or a metaphysical guarantee that some of our ideas really do copy things accurately.
This kind of metaphysical guarantee was what was provided by Descartes’s God, Spinoza’s theory of the two parallel attributes, and Leibniz’s preestablished harmony.
The copy-theory of ideas underlies Philosophical Realism's assumption there are things independent of the human conditions which the mind can copy [corresponds].
The limitation is, as Rorty indicated,

You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Infinite regress of systems within a system is possible up to a point, they cannot regress beyond the overall System. The parts can regress into the components of the whole System but cannot regress beyond the boundary of the whole System. In universal terms the ethereal is the boundary line for philosophy and science. Theology and the fantasy genres go there in thought and perception but the components of the physical universe end there to the best of our knowledge.

There is philosophical realism which is valid and philosophical anti-realism which is not. An example of philosophical realism would be Michael Faraday’s theory that all forces can be reduced to one force. Based on that theory he made many amazing discoveries. He reached a roadblock with gravity and that roadblock still holds. Still based on the results he got his theory was based on philosophical realism. Philosophical anti-realism is rampant, it is not based on any theory that can be evaluated. It is based on active reason; rationalizing, with no guidance from passive reason; intuitive perception.

Rorty’s theory could be classified as philosophical anti-realism. Ideas do not copy things, although we can check ideas against things, Faraday did it (his theory that all forces could be reduced to one force) and he had success with it. With just passive reason: thought experiments and intuitive perception the ancient Greeks did very well.

The problem with the anti-PR perspective is that it divides reality, where everything is resonant, separating out the mental as if it were in another dimension and totally disconnected from the rest of reality. We do not have to leap out of our minds to access reality, we are in it. What can be metaphysically accessed is valid.

If there is just active reason; speculation without intuitive perception in our assessments of reality, the veracity of the theory rests on just that. The likelihood of it being borne out is like throwing darts, active reasoning alone is likely to miss. The two modes in use are better positioned to hit the bullseye.

There is no reason to be a skeptic in relation to theories based on PR. If they do not past the test we know they are just speculation based on active reason alone. If they past the test we know that Aristotle’s two modes of reasoning have been operative, not just one. There is proof in realizing and further proof in testing. There is no reason to be skeptical except in the case of philosophical anti-realism which as indicated is speculation based on nothing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:52 am Note this from Rorty in,
ON PHILOSOPHY and PHILOSOPHERS
Unpublished Papers, 1960–2000
RICHARD RORTY
Ed. W. P. MAŁECKI, CHRIS VOPARIL
The copy-theory of ideas is a theory which is common to all philosophers from Descartes through Hume.
According to this theory, we know the truth only when our ideas accurately copy things.
But, as Descartes and Berkeley made clear, we never are in a position to check our ideas against things.
You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Therefore, it seems that we must choose between either Hume’s skepticism or a metaphysical guarantee that some of our ideas really do copy things accurately.
This kind of metaphysical guarantee was what was provided by Descartes’s God, Spinoza’s theory of the two parallel attributes, and Leibniz’s preestablished harmony.
The copy-theory of ideas underlies Philosophical Realism's assumption there are things independent of the human conditions which the mind can copy [corresponds].
The limitation is, as Rorty indicated,

You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Infinite regress of systems within a system is possible up to a point, they cannot regress beyond the overall System. The parts can regress into the components of the whole System but cannot regress beyond the boundary of the whole System. In universal terms the ethereal is the boundary line for philosophy and science. Theology and the fantasy genres go there in thought and perception but the components of the physical universe end there to the best of our knowledge.
Infinite regress of systems mean the systems expand into bigger and bigger infinite systems.

When you invoke the 'Whole System' you are concluding there is a final System to stop the infinite regress.
This is like invoking the "first cause" or "unmoved mover" which is illusory.

The argument against this is Kantian, i.e. there is no Whole-System-in-Itself.

To avoid an infinite regress one has to rely on the top-down emergent approach.
There is philosophical realism [PR] which is valid and philosophical anti-realism which is not. An example of philosophical realism would be Michael Faraday’s theory that all forces can be reduced to one force. Based on that theory he made many amazing discoveries. He reached a roadblock with gravity and that roadblock still holds. Still based on the results he got his theory was based on philosophical realism. Philosophical anti-realism is rampant, it is not based on any theory that can be evaluated. It is based on active reason; rationalizing, with no guidance from passive reason; intuitive perception.
As stated PR is not realistic because it starts with a bottom-up assumption.

I believe you misunderstood what is PR, note again,
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.
Note the bolded above statement.

As such, Faraday may have reduced all forces to one force, but he did not claim that one force exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding and the human maintained scientific framework.
As such, Faraday's conclusion cannot be that of Philosophical Realism.
Rorty’s theory could be classified as philosophical anti-realism. Ideas do not copy things, although we can check ideas against things, Faraday did it (his theory that all forces could be reduced to one force) and he had success with it. With just passive reason: thought experiments and intuitive perception the ancient Greeks did very well.
As explained above, Faraday's conclusion cannot be that of PR. IF he had insisted his conclusions are that of PR, then he was wrong.
The problem with the anti-PR perspective is that it divides reality, where everything is resonant, separating out the mental as if it were in another dimension and totally disconnected from the rest of reality. We do not have to leap out of our minds to access reality, we are in it. What can be metaphysically accessed is valid.
You got that wrong and there is a conflations and mixed up of view therein.

The anti-PR perspective starts with the premise that everything is part and parcel of reality [all there is] which humans are intricately part and parcel of.
If you adopt the PR perspective, then you have to leap out of your mind to access reality which you are not part and parcel of.
If there is just active reason; speculation without intuitive perception in our assessments of reality, the veracity of the theory rests on just that. The likelihood of it being borne out is like throwing darts, active reasoning alone is likely to miss. The two modes in use are better positioned to hit the bullseye.
This is what the philosophical realists are doing.
There is no reason to be a skeptic in relation to theories based on PR. If they do not past the test we know they are just speculation based on active reason alone. If they past the test we know that Aristotle’s two modes of reasoning have been operative, not just one. There is proof in realizing and further proof in testing. There is no reason to be skeptical except in the case of philosophical anti-realism which as indicated is speculation based on nothing.
PR by definition is just unrealistic as I had stated it is based on an unrealistic assumption.

Note again,
  • [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
    This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
There is no question of passing any test for PR because its fundamental premise is unrealistic thus whatever conclusions that follow therefrom is unrealistic.

The ultimate problem of PR is fundamentally psychological.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:46 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:52 am Note this from Rorty in,
ON PHILOSOPHY and PHILOSOPHERS
Unpublished Papers, 1960–2000
RICHARD RORTY
Ed. W. P. MAŁECKI, CHRIS VOPARIL



The copy-theory of ideas underlies Philosophical Realism's assumption there are things independent of the human conditions which the mind can copy [corresponds].
The limitation is, as Rorty indicated,

You cannot leap outside of your mind and see whether what is in your mind matches what is outside your mind.
Infinite regress of systems within a system is possible up to a point, they cannot regress beyond the overall System. The parts can regress into the components of the whole System but cannot regress beyond the boundary of the whole System. In universal terms the ethereal is the boundary line for philosophy and science. Theology and the fantasy genres go there in thought and perception but the components of the physical universe end there to the best of our knowledge.
Infinite regress of systems mean the systems expand into bigger and bigger infinite systems.

When you invoke the 'Whole System' you are concluding there is a final System to stop the infinite regress.
This is like invoking the "first cause" or "unmoved mover" which is illusory.

The argument against this is Kantian, i.e. there is no Whole-System-in-Itself.

To avoid an infinite regress one has to rely on the top-down emergent approach.
There is philosophical realism [PR] which is valid and philosophical anti-realism which is not. An example of philosophical realism would be Michael Faraday’s theory that all forces can be reduced to one force. Based on that theory he made many amazing discoveries. He reached a roadblock with gravity and that roadblock still holds. Still based on the results he got his theory was based on philosophical realism. Philosophical anti-realism is rampant, it is not based on any theory that can be evaluated. It is based on active reason; rationalizing, with no guidance from passive reason; intuitive perception.
As stated PR is not realistic because it starts with a bottom-up assumption.

I believe you misunderstood what is PR, note again,
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.
Note the bolded above statement.

As such, Faraday may have reduced all forces to one force, but he did not claim that one force exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding and the human maintained scientific framework.
As such, Faraday's conclusion cannot be that of Philosophical Realism.
Rorty’s theory could be classified as philosophical anti-realism. Ideas do not copy things, although we can check ideas against things, Faraday did it (his theory that all forces could be reduced to one force) and he had success with it. With just passive reason: thought experiments and intuitive perception the ancient Greeks did very well.
As explained above, Faraday's conclusion cannot be that of PR. IF he had insisted his conclusions are that of PR, then he was wrong.
The problem with the anti-PR perspective is that it divides reality, where everything is resonant, separating out the mental as if it were in another dimension and totally disconnected from the rest of reality. We do not have to leap out of our minds to access reality, we are in it. What can be metaphysically accessed is valid.
You got that wrong and there is a conflations and mixed up of view therein.

The anti-PR perspective starts with the premise that everything is part and parcel of reality [all there is] which humans are intricately part and parcel of.
If you adopt the PR perspective, then you have to leap out of your mind to access reality which you are not part and parcel of.
If there is just active reason; speculation without intuitive perception in our assessments of reality, the veracity of the theory rests on just that. The likelihood of it being borne out is like throwing darts, active reasoning alone is likely to miss. The two modes in use are better positioned to hit the bullseye.
This is what the philosophical realists are doing.
There is no reason to be a skeptic in relation to theories based on PR. If they do not past the test we know they are just speculation based on active reason alone. If they past the test we know that Aristotle’s two modes of reasoning have been operative, not just one. There is proof in realizing and further proof in testing. There is no reason to be skeptical except in the case of philosophical anti-realism which as indicated is speculation based on nothing.
PR by definition is just unrealistic as I had stated it is based on an unrealistic assumption.

Note again,
  • [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
    This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
There is no question of passing any test for PR because its fundamental premise is unrealistic thus whatever conclusions that follow therefrom is unrealistic.

The ultimate problem of PR is fundamentally psychological.
The Big Bang could be considered a top down emergent approach. Kant’s philosophy is over 300 years old. Phenomena what is experienced and noumena what is presumed constitute reality from his perspective.

A given thing is experienced and unless it is seen as ideational only it is experienced as existing. What is not known, unless again is ideational only, exists to be discovered at some point. The origin of the electromagnetic field for example.

That the origin of the electromagnetic field does not exist until we know, think about, or understand it would mean that what pertains to and support all of nature and our lives depends on us knowing, thinking about, and understanding it? Once it is known about as with Faraday then it exists as a concept which does not mean that it does not exist unless it becomes a concept or scientifically proven.

PR to me is what Kant described as phenomena and noumena. The known and the presumed to exist which one day will also be known conceptually but not as a-thing-in-itself for to know that would mean an expansion of consciousness and philosophy is no where there yet. Consciousness is difficult to conceptualize but easy to reduce as emergent, meaning owes its existence to phenomena.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:01 am The Big Bang could be considered a top down emergent approach. Kant’s philosophy is over 300 years old. Phenomena what is experienced and noumena what is presumed constitute reality from his perspective.
Yes, the BB is a top-down emergent approach, but it only go down as far as the evidence can support and that is empirically possible which is down the 61st second from a theoretical starting Bang [t0], say point-X at 61st-second.
Then it works empirically [possible] upward from point-X at the 61st second [phenomena] and NOT from t0 [noumena].

As you can see the noumena [in this case t0] is merely fiction and illusory to make it logical [not empirically real] for the t[61seconds] since we rely [habituated] on Time.
So whatever is deemed noumena do not constitute what is real or even presume to be real.

Note according to Kant;
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    CPR B311
As in the above case, the noumena at t0 is merely a limit for phenomena[sensibility] that is fictitious for negative employment only, never constitutive as real.
A given thing is experienced and unless it is seen as ideational only it is experienced as existing. What is not known, unless again is ideational only, exists to be discovered at some point. The origin of the electromagnetic field for example.
Whether ideation or whatever, whatever is known or not, it must be empirically possible and possible to be experienced, i.e. awaiting justifiable evidence to confirm it is real.
Yes, the electromagnetic field for example was not known then discovered or even human-like aliens in a planet 10 light years away, not known but empirically possible to be discovered.
That the origin of the electromagnetic field does not exist until we know, think about, or understand it would mean that what pertains to and support all of nature and our lives depends on us knowing, thinking about, and understanding it?
Once it is known about as with Faraday then it exists as a concept which does not mean that it does not exist unless it becomes a concept or scientifically proven.
But the electromagnetic field could not exist absolutely independent of human conditions as claimed by PR.
Somehow its existence is linked with the human conditions.

The point is the electromagnetic field when not known then but when speculated it is speculated by humans, thus cannot be independent of the human conditions as claimed by PR.
PR to me is what Kant described as phenomena and noumena. The known and the presumed to exist which one day will also be known conceptually but not as a-thing-in-itself for to know that would mean an expansion of consciousness and philosophy is no where there yet. Consciousness is difficult to conceptualize but easy to reduce as emergent, meaning owes its existence to phenomena.
Kant is very critical of and do not agree with PR per se where he claimed PR is actually Empirical Idealism. [note 'idealism']
Kant's view is that of Empirical Realism [ER] coupled with Transcendental Idealism.

Whatever is presumed to exists as real must be empirically based and possible to be experienced [note top-down]. These are still speculated-phenomena with attached degrees of confidence of its real possibility. For example it is more probable that water exists in Mars than human-like aliens existing in a planet 10 light years away.

Whatever is noumena which is merely a limit of negative employment thus taken as never real.
The noumena can never be real, empirical nor possible to be experienced.

Here is an illustration of the need for the concept of 'noumena'
For example there is a need at the conventional perspective to talk of things and appearances.
Then conventionally the logic is,
-some thing cannot come from nothing [?],
-appearance must be from something-that-appear[?].

To avoid equivocation and conflation, Kant will introduce the concept of noumena [as a limit as negative employment without committing it is something real] to fill in those question marks temporary so that he can fully explain what is going on in the conventional perspective.
After explaining the conventional perspective fully, then Kant will go on the explain the limit of the conventional perspective and it does not support the noumena to be real at all but rather it is illusory when claimed as a thing-in-itself by PR.

This is like a child asking where the baby came from and the parents will just satisfy his natural curiosity and question with 'the stork brought the baby to us' while awaiting from the child to mature to the next stage of knowledge to understand the reality of it.
This is how Kant work in his CPR explaining knowledge through the various evolutionary phase.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:23 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:01 am The Big Bang could be considered a top down emergent approach. Kant’s philosophy is over 300 years old. Phenomena what is experienced and noumena what is presumed constitute reality from his perspective.
Yes, the BB is a top-down emergent approach, but it only go down as far as the evidence can support and that is empirically possible which is down the 61st second from a theoretical starting Bang [t0], say point-X at 61st-second.
Then it works empirically [possible] upward from point-X at the 61st second [phenomena] and NOT from t0 [noumena].

As you can see the noumena [in this case t0] is merely fiction and illusory to make it logical [not empirically real] for the t[61seconds] since we rely [habituated] on Time.
So whatever is deemed noumena do not constitute what is real or even presume to be real.

Note according to Kant;
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    CPR B311
As in the above case, the noumena at t0 is merely a limit for phenomena[sensibility] that is fictitious for negative employment only, never constitutive as real.
A given thing is experienced and unless it is seen as ideational only it is experienced as existing. What is not known, unless again is ideational only, exists to be discovered at some point. The origin of the electromagnetic field for example.
Whether ideation or whatever, whatever is known or not, it must be empirically possible and possible to be experienced, i.e. awaiting justifiable evidence to confirm it is real.
Yes, the electromagnetic field for example was not known then discovered or even human-like aliens in a planet 10 light years away, not known but empirically possible to be discovered.
That the origin of the electromagnetic field does not exist until we know, think about, or understand it would mean that what pertains to and support all of nature and our lives depends on us knowing, thinking about, and understanding it?
Once it is known about as with Faraday then it exists as a concept which does not mean that it does not exist unless it becomes a concept or scientifically proven.
But the electromagnetic field could not exist absolutely independent of human conditions as claimed by PR.
Somehow its existence is linked with the human conditions.

The point is the electromagnetic field when not known then but when speculated it is speculated by humans, thus cannot be independent of the human conditions as claimed by PR.
PR to me is what Kant described as phenomena and noumena. The known and the presumed to exist which one day will also be known conceptually but not as a-thing-in-itself for to know that would mean an expansion of consciousness and philosophy is no where there yet. Consciousness is difficult to conceptualize but easy to reduce as emergent, meaning owes its existence to phenomena.
Kant is very critical of and do not agree with PR per se where he claimed PR is actually Empirical Idealism. [note 'idealism']
Kant's view is that of Empirical Realism [ER] coupled with Transcendental Idealism.

Whatever is presumed to exists as real must be empirically based and possible to be experienced [note top-down]. These are still speculated-phenomena with attached degrees of confidence of its real possibility. For example it is more probable that water exists in Mars than human-like aliens existing in a planet 10 light years away.

Whatever is noumena which is merely a limit of negative employment thus taken as never real.
The noumena can never be real, empirical nor possible to be experienced.

Here is an illustration of the need for the concept of 'noumena'
For example there is a need at the conventional perspective to talk of things and appearances.
Then conventionally the logic is,
-some thing cannot come from nothing [?],
-appearance must be from something-that-appear[?].

To avoid equivocation and conflation, Kant will introduce the concept of noumena [as a limit as negative employment without committing it is something real] to fill in those question marks temporary so that he can fully explain what is going on in the conventional perspective.
After explaining the conventional perspective fully, then Kant will go on the explain the limit of the conventional perspective and it does not support the noumena to be real at all but rather it is illusory when claimed as a thing-in-itself by PR.

This is like a child asking where the baby came from and the parents will just satisfy his natural curiosity and question with 'the stork brought the baby to us' while awaiting from the child to mature to the next stage of knowledge to understand the reality of it.
This is how Kant work in his CPR explaining knowledge through the various evolutionary phase.
From Aristotle to Aquinas metaphysics; noumena, was the study of the fundamental aspects of nature without which it could not exist. Kant from his Christian faith would have known of the 24 Elders, principles of nature which as metaphor, since there were no concepts to describe the principles they were ascribed to human patronages of great spiritual merit.

Today the principles are not known or understood either. The forces are in the process of being understood. This era began in 499 B.C., the lowest point of the Dark Ages and will end in 2499 A.D. in the next 477 years the forces will be understood. Think of all that has been known since Kant’s day. As the forces are not principles, and are no more than five, and will remain a mystery until it is possible to understand the emanations of the forces which are the principles of which 20 impact the physical world. The other four emanations impact the mental. As this is the age when all that is electrical in nature will be known. The final four to be discovered would have to wait for the following Age of the Mind.

Why is any of this important is that false information, an example of which that the mind is just processing can lead to mindless, as the mind as such perceived not to exist, with consequences we cannot even begin to imagine. Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces etc. existed prior, if not man could not exist. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place where the Renaissance never intended it to go.

It is easier to understand forces than the emanations of forces or the possibly two emanations emanations responsible for the electromagnetic field when polarized becoming four principles, making a total of twenty-four. By the end of this era more will be known in relation to the forces. Emanations are harder to detect but eventually they will be concepts for all that are accepted by consensus. At what point sensory perception ends and we have to rely on concepts is likely with forces as emanations and the mental is unlikely to be available to sensory perception except as they can be felt or inferred.

It is alright to be skeptical, it is important in relation to conspiracy theories. To be skeptical about the nature of reality and say this or that is impossible is not to be philosophically or scientifically open-minded to the nature of reality. Today’s reality would be incomprehensible to someone in 499 A.D.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:23 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:01 am The Big Bang could be considered a top down emergent approach. Kant’s philosophy is over 300 years old. Phenomena what is experienced and noumena what is presumed constitute reality from his perspective.
Yes, the BB is a top-down emergent approach, but it only go down as far as the evidence can support and that is empirically possible which is down the 61st second from a theoretical starting Bang [t0], say point-X at 61st-second.
Then it works empirically [possible] upward from point-X at the 61st second [phenomena] and NOT from t0 [noumena].

As you can see the noumena [in this case t0] is merely fiction and illusory to make it logical [not empirically real] for the t[61seconds] since we rely [habituated] on Time.
So whatever is deemed noumena do not constitute what is real or even presume to be real.

Note according to Kant;
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    CPR B311
As in the above case, the noumena at t0 is merely a limit for phenomena[sensibility] that is fictitious for negative employment only, never constitutive as real.
A given thing is experienced and unless it is seen as ideational only it is experienced as existing. What is not known, unless again is ideational only, exists to be discovered at some point. The origin of the electromagnetic field for example.
Whether ideation or whatever, whatever is known or not, it must be empirically possible and possible to be experienced, i.e. awaiting justifiable evidence to confirm it is real.
Yes, the electromagnetic field for example was not known then discovered or even human-like aliens in a planet 10 light years away, not known but empirically possible to be discovered.
That the origin of the electromagnetic field does not exist until we know, think about, or understand it would mean that what pertains to and support all of nature and our lives depends on us knowing, thinking about, and understanding it?
Once it is known about as with Faraday then it exists as a concept which does not mean that it does not exist unless it becomes a concept or scientifically proven.
But the electromagnetic field could not exist absolutely independent of human conditions as claimed by PR.
Somehow its existence is linked with the human conditions.

The point is the electromagnetic field when not known then but when speculated it is speculated by humans, thus cannot be independent of the human conditions as claimed by PR.
PR to me is what Kant described as phenomena and noumena. The known and the presumed to exist which one day will also be known conceptually but not as a-thing-in-itself for to know that would mean an expansion of consciousness and philosophy is no where there yet. Consciousness is difficult to conceptualize but easy to reduce as emergent, meaning owes its existence to phenomena.
Kant is very critical of and do not agree with PR per se where he claimed PR is actually Empirical Idealism. [note 'idealism']
Kant's view is that of Empirical Realism [ER] coupled with Transcendental Idealism.

Whatever is presumed to exists as real must be empirically based and possible to be experienced [note top-down]. These are still speculated-phenomena with attached degrees of confidence of its real possibility. For example it is more probable that water exists in Mars than human-like aliens existing in a planet 10 light years away.

Whatever is noumena which is merely a limit of negative employment thus taken as never real.
The noumena can never be real, empirical nor possible to be experienced.

Here is an illustration of the need for the concept of 'noumena'
For example there is a need at the conventional perspective to talk of things and appearances.
Then conventionally the logic is,
-some thing cannot come from nothing [?],
-appearance must be from something-that-appear[?].

To avoid equivocation and conflation, Kant will introduce the concept of noumena [as a limit as negative employment without committing it is something real] to fill in those question marks temporary so that he can fully explain what is going on in the conventional perspective.
After explaining the conventional perspective fully, then Kant will go on the explain the limit of the conventional perspective and it does not support the noumena to be real at all but rather it is illusory when claimed as a thing-in-itself by PR.

This is like a child asking where the baby came from and the parents will just satisfy his natural curiosity and question with 'the stork brought the baby to us' while awaiting from the child to mature to the next stage of knowledge to understand the reality of it.
This is how Kant work in his CPR explaining knowledge through the various evolutionary phase.
From Aristotle to Aquinas metaphysics; noumena, was the study of the fundamental forces, the aspects of nature, without which it, or anything else, could not exist. Kant as a Christian would have known of the 24 Elders as metaphor. Since there were no known concepts to describe the principles of nature Elders as metaphor was thought to be human patronages of spiritual merit instead of understanding Elders as metaphor for principles of nature.

Today the principles are not known or understood either. The forces are in the process of being understood. This era which began in 499 B.C., the lowest point of the Dark Ages has had its challenges and successes in understanding the nature of reality. In the next 477 years to 2499, the beginning of the new era, the forces will likely be understood in their entirety. Think of all that has become known since Kant’s day, in just over 300 years. The 24 principles; emanations of the forces; 20 responsible for physical life and four for mental life will likely be discovered and understood if the next era is an Age of the Mind.

Why any of this is important is that false information, an example of which is that the mind is just processing can lead to mindlessness, the mind as such perceived not to exist, with consequences we cannot even begin to imagine. Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.

To be skeptical about the nature of reality and say this or that is impossible is not to be philosophically or scientifically open-minded to the nature of reality. Today’s reality would be incomprehensible to someone in 499 A.D., less than two millennia ago.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:56 pm From Aristotle to Aquinas metaphysics; noumena, was the study of the fundamental forces, the aspects of nature, without which it, or anything else, could not exist. Kant as a Christian would have known of the 24 Elders as metaphor. Since there were no known concepts to describe the principles of nature Elders as metaphor was thought to be human patronages of spiritual merit instead of understanding Elders as metaphor for principles of nature.
Note,
In philosophy, a noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νoούμενον; plural noumena) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1] The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Btw, Kant was anti-Christianity and anti-theistic_religion.

Thus the common understanding of what is noumena is dominantly Kantian.

Today the principles are not known or understood either. The forces are in the process of being understood. This era which began in 499 B.C., the lowest point of the Dark Ages has had its challenges and successes in understanding the nature of reality. In the next 477 years to 2499, the beginning of the new era, the forces will likely be understood in their entirety. Think of all that has become known since Kant’s day, in just over 300 years. The 24 principles; emanations of the forces; 20 responsible for physical life and four for mental life will likely be discovered and understood if the next era is an Age of the Mind.

Why any of this is important is that false information, an example of which is that the mind is just processing can lead to mindlessness, the mind as such perceived not to exist, with consequences we cannot even begin to imagine. Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.

To be skeptical about the nature of reality and say this or that is impossible is not to be philosophically or scientifically open-minded to the nature of reality. Today’s reality would be incomprehensible to someone in 499 A.D., less than two millennia ago.
Note I mentioned above,
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.
To say '.. is due to humans.. ' is misleading.

What anti-realism [Kantian] claim is there is no reality that is absolutely independent [i.e. intricately interacted] of the human conditions.
It would be wrong to state humans deliberately [consciously] create reality.
But note this claim;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476&p=501935&hili ... or#p501935

The above perspective is to ensure there is absolutely no room [fool proof] for anything that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, notably the existence of an independent God or soul that survives physical death that trigger believers to commit the most terrible evil on humanity.

Thus it is more effective and realistic to focus on what is emergent from what is empirically possible and experienced directly grounded on sound philosophical verification and justifications.

As I had stated why the majority of people tend toward philosophical realism is due to an instinctive psychological state trigger 'conclusions' re Philosophical Realism [or Transcendental Realism] that prompted Kant to warn of the following;
These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

There are no Kantian noumena, but there are countless phenomena, including the experiences of all the life forms that have ever and will ever exist.

The cause of all these life forms, and inorganic forms too, is sometimes called existence itself, and sometimes God. In both these cases I'd not want to confuse the absolute with an aggregate of differentiated noumena as did Kant.The whole is more than its parts.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:46 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:56 pm From Aristotle to Aquinas metaphysics; noumena, was the study of the fundamental forces, the aspects of nature, without which it, or anything else, could not exist. Kant as a Christian would have known of the 24 Elders as metaphor. Since there were no known concepts to describe the principles of nature Elders as metaphor was thought to be human patronages of spiritual merit instead of understanding Elders as metaphor for principles of nature.
Note,
In philosophy, a noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νoούμενον; plural noumena) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1] The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Btw, Kant was anti-Christianity and anti-theistic_religion.

Thus the common understanding of what is noumena is dominantly Kantian.

Today the principles are not known or understood either. The forces are in the process of being understood. This era which began in 499 B.C., the lowest point of the Dark Ages has had its challenges and successes in understanding the nature of reality. In the next 477 years to 2499, the beginning of the new era, the forces will likely be understood in their entirety. Think of all that has become known since Kant’s day, in just over 300 years. The 24 principles; emanations of the forces; 20 responsible for physical life and four for mental life will likely be discovered and understood if the next era is an Age of the Mind.

Why any of this is important is that false information, an example of which is that the mind is just processing can lead to mindlessness, the mind as such perceived not to exist, with consequences we cannot even begin to imagine. Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.

To be skeptical about the nature of reality and say this or that is impossible is not to be philosophically or scientifically open-minded to the nature of reality. Today’s reality would be incomprehensible to someone in 499 A.D., less than two millennia ago.
Note I mentioned above,
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.
To say '.. is due to humans.. ' is misleading.

What anti-realism [Kantian] claim is there is no reality that is absolutely independent [i.e. intricately interacted] of the human conditions.
It would be wrong to state humans deliberately [consciously] create reality.
But note this claim;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476&p=501935&hili ... or#p501935

The above perspective is to ensure there is absolutely no room [fool proof] for anything that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, notably the existence of an independent God or soul that survives physical death that trigger believers to commit the most terrible evil on humanity.

Thus it is more effective and realistic to focus on what is emergent from what is empirically possible and experienced directly grounded on sound philosophical verification and justifications.

As I had stated why the majority of people tend toward philosophical realism is due to an instinctive psychological state trigger 'conclusions' re Philosophical Realism [or Transcendental Realism] that prompted Kant to warn of the following;
These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397
It does not not matter what Kant believed or did not believe it is not pertinent to this discussion. Noumena is used, or should be used, for what is not perceptible to the senses but is still part of our reality. Electricity or electromagnetism or the forces were not known of until the 1600s. Kant may have used the term but it is not owned by him as it is pertinent to any abstract thought that connects the non-sensory perceptible to sensory reality making it conceptual and thus perceptible and of practical use in daily life as these discoveries have been.

I would agree with the co-creator perspective. Humans are integral to our three dimensional reality. They are not integral to any force or emanation. To say they are would be the equivalent of saying that an Avatar was the Logos; the Intelligence in nature. He can be in sync with Intelligence; in correspondence with but not It, as no finite form can be a universal principle. As for example the Elders; Principles of nature, being interpreted as 12 Patriarchs and 12 Disciples.

You keep bringing God and religion into the discussion. We are discussing philosophy not theology so I do not understand why you are doing so. Maybe because you confuse Kant’s use of the word transcendental with religion. Kant caused confusion by using this word for metaphysics which is not transcendental. It is the unseen and currently unknown, not accessible to our senses but which is still within our dimensions and impacts every area of our lives.

As mentioned above the forces were not known or named until towards the end of the Dark Ages. In our three dimensions there is matter and force, both which are close to be understood and classified for what they actually are. As there are three dimensions matter and force only accounts for two, the third which is mental is not understood yet. That it is emanations which are Principles of nature; the 24 Elders is pertinent to understanding the three aspects of our three-dimensional world.

To say anything other than what has been discovered is illusion is an illusion, If it is within these dimensions how can it be an illusion. Once it is discovered and known it can be related to our sensory experience and known as conceptually true and relatable to our lives as electricity and electromagnetism is, although not known or relatable to life in the Dark Ages.

The topic of this discussion is answered by the perspective that each discipline should stay within its lane. The reductionism of sociobiology tends to want to expand its lane into a highway where all lanes meet and that is incorrect. A theoretical physicist posited four different ways the multiverse might exist, shedding light in physics for those within that lane to follow. Philosophy should be doing something similar for science. Instead it is itself lost in reductionism when it is not endlessly rehashing the work of prior philosophers. That is why it is beginning to be perceived as not really relevant to todays world.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:46 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:56 pm From Aristotle to Aquinas metaphysics; noumena, was the study of the fundamental forces, the aspects of nature, without which it, or anything else, could not exist. Kant as a Christian would have known of the 24 Elders as metaphor. Since there were no known concepts to describe the principles of nature Elders as metaphor was thought to be human patronages of spiritual merit instead of understanding Elders as metaphor for principles of nature.
Note,
In philosophy, a noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νoούμενον; plural noumena) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1] The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Btw, Kant was anti-Christianity and anti-theistic_religion.

Thus the common understanding of what is noumena is dominantly Kantian.

Today the principles are not known or understood either. The forces are in the process of being understood. This era which began in 499 B.C., the lowest point of the Dark Ages has had its challenges and successes in understanding the nature of reality. In the next 477 years to 2499, the beginning of the new era, the forces will likely be understood in their entirety. Think of all that has become known since Kant’s day, in just over 300 years. The 24 principles; emanations of the forces; 20 responsible for physical life and four for mental life will likely be discovered and understood if the next era is an Age of the Mind.

Why any of this is important is that false information, an example of which is that the mind is just processing can lead to mindlessness, the mind as such perceived not to exist, with consequences we cannot even begin to imagine. Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.

To be skeptical about the nature of reality and say this or that is impossible is not to be philosophically or scientifically open-minded to the nature of reality. Today’s reality would be incomprehensible to someone in 499 A.D., less than two millennia ago.
Note I mentioned above,
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.
To say '.. is due to humans.. ' is misleading.

What anti-realism [Kantian] claim is there is no reality that is absolutely independent [i.e. intricately interacted] of the human conditions.
It would be wrong to state humans deliberately [consciously] create reality.
But note this claim;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476&p=501935&hili ... or#p501935

The above perspective is to ensure there is absolutely no room [fool proof] for anything that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, notably the existence of an independent God or soul that survives physical death that trigger believers to commit the most terrible evil on humanity.

Thus it is more effective and realistic to focus on what is emergent from what is empirically possible and experienced directly grounded on sound philosophical verification and justifications.

As I had stated why the majority of people tend toward philosophical realism is due to an instinctive psychological state trigger 'conclusions' re Philosophical Realism [or Transcendental Realism] that prompted Kant to warn of the following;
These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397
It does not not matter what Kant believed or did not believe it is not pertinent to this discussion. Noumena is used, or should be used, for what is not perceptible to the senses but is still part of our reality. Electricity or electromagnetism or the forces were not known of until the 1600s. Kant may have used the term but it is not owned by him as it is pertinent to any abstract thought that connects the non-sensory perceptible to sensory reality making it conceptual and thus perceptible and of practical use in daily life as these discoveries have been.

I would agree with the co-creator perspective. Humans are integral to our three dimensional reality. They are not integral to any force or emanation. To say they are would be the equivalent of saying that an Avatar was the Logos; the Intelligence in nature. He can be in sync with Intelligence; in correspondence with but not It, as no finite form can be a universal principle. As for example the Elders; Principles of nature, being interpreted as 12 Patriarchs and 12 Disciples.

You keep bringing God and religion into the discussion. We are discussing philosophy not theology so I do not understand why you are doing so. Maybe because you confuse Kant’s use of the word transcendental with religion. Kant caused confusion by using this word for metaphysics which is not transcendental. It is the unseen and currently unknown, not accessible to our senses but which is still within our dimensions and impacts every area of our lives.

As mentioned above the forces were not known or named until towards the end of the Dark Ages. In our three dimensions there is matter and force, both which are close to be understood and classified for what they actually are. As there are three dimensions matter and force only accounts for two, the third which is mental is not understood yet. That it is emanations which are Principles of nature; the 24 Elders is pertinent to understanding the three aspects of our three-dimensional world.

To say anything other than what has been discovered is illusion is an illusion, If it is within these dimensions how can it be an illusion. Once it is discovered and known it can be related to our sensory experience and known as conceptually true and relatable to our lives as electricity and electromagnetism is, although not known or relatable to life in the Dark Ages.

The topic of this discussion is answered by the perspective that each discipline should stay within its lane. The reductionism of sociobiology tends to want to expand its lane into a highway where all lanes meet and that is incorrect. A theoretical physicist posited four different ways the multiverse might exist, shedding light in physics for those within that lane to follow. Philosophy should be doing something similar for science. Instead it is itself lost in reductionism when it is not endlessly rehashing the work of prior philosophers. That is why it is beginning to be perceived as not really relevant to todays world.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:46 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:56 pm From Aristotle to Aquinas metaphysics; noumena, was the study of the fundamental forces, the aspects of nature, without which it, or anything else, could not exist. Kant as a Christian would have known of the 24 Elders as metaphor. Since there were no known concepts to describe the principles of nature Elders as metaphor was thought to be human patronages of spiritual merit instead of understanding Elders as metaphor for principles of nature.
Note,
In philosophy, a noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νoούμενον; plural noumena) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1] The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Btw, Kant was anti-Christianity and anti-theistic_religion.

Thus the common understanding of what is noumena is dominantly Kantian.

Today the principles are not known or understood either. The forces are in the process of being understood. This era which began in 499 B.C., the lowest point of the Dark Ages has had its challenges and successes in understanding the nature of reality. In the next 477 years to 2499, the beginning of the new era, the forces will likely be understood in their entirety. Think of all that has become known since Kant’s day, in just over 300 years. The 24 principles; emanations of the forces; 20 responsible for physical life and four for mental life will likely be discovered and understood if the next era is an Age of the Mind.

Why any of this is important is that false information, an example of which is that the mind is just processing can lead to mindlessness, the mind as such perceived not to exist, with consequences we cannot even begin to imagine. Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.

To be skeptical about the nature of reality and say this or that is impossible is not to be philosophically or scientifically open-minded to the nature of reality. Today’s reality would be incomprehensible to someone in 499 A.D., less than two millennia ago.
Note I mentioned above,
In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... edecessors
Everything that existed prior to humans; forces, principles; emanations of forces, existed prior to man. To claim that all that exists is due to humans is to take humanism to a place the Renaissance never intended it to go.
To say '.. is due to humans.. ' is misleading.

What anti-realism [Kantian] claim is there is no reality that is absolutely independent [i.e. intricately interacted] of the human conditions.
It would be wrong to state humans deliberately [consciously] create reality.
But note this claim;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476&p=501935&hili ... or#p501935

The above perspective is to ensure there is absolutely no room [fool proof] for anything that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, notably the existence of an independent God or soul that survives physical death that trigger believers to commit the most terrible evil on humanity.

Thus it is more effective and realistic to focus on what is emergent from what is empirically possible and experienced directly grounded on sound philosophical verification and justifications.

As I had stated why the majority of people tend toward philosophical realism is due to an instinctive psychological state trigger 'conclusions' re Philosophical Realism [or Transcendental Realism] that prompted Kant to warn of the following;
These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397
It does not not matter what Kant believed or did not believe it is not pertinent to this discussion. Noumena is used, or should be used, for what is not perceptible to the senses but is still part of our reality. Electricity or electromagnetism or the forces were not known of until the 1600s. Kant may have used the term but it is not owned by him as it is pertinent to any abstract thought that connects the non-sensory perceptible to sensory reality making it conceptual and thus perceptible and of practical use in daily life as these discoveries have been.

I would agree with the co-creator perspective. Humans are integral to our three dimensional reality. They are not integral to any force or emanation. To say they are would be the equivalent of saying that an Avatar was the Logos; the Intelligence in nature. He can be in sync with Intelligence; in correspondence with but not It, as no finite form can be a universal principle. As for example the Elders metaphorically the Principles of nature, being interpreted as 12 Patriarchs and 12 Disciples.

You keep bringing God and religion into the discussion. We are discussing philosophy not theology so I do not understand why you are doing so. Maybe because you confuse Kant’s use of the word transcendental with religion. Kant caused confusion by using this word for metaphysics which is not transcendental. It is the unseen and currently unknown, not accessible to our senses but still within our dimensions and impacts every area of our lives.

As mentioned above the forces were not known or named until towards the end of the Dark Ages. In our three dimensions there is matter and force, both which are close to be understood and classified for what they actually are. As there are three dimensions matter and force only accounts for two, the third which is mental is not understood yet. That it is related to the Principles of nature; the 24 Elders, metaphor for the Principles which are pertinent to understanding the three aspects of our three-dimensional world.

To say anything other than what has been discovered is illusion is an illusion, If it is within these dimensions how can it be an illusion. Once it is discovered and known it can be related to our sensory experience and known as conceptually true and relatable to our lives as electricity and electromagnetism is, although not known or relatable to life in the Dark Ages.

The topic of this discussion is answered by the perspective that each discipline should stay within its lane. The reductionism of sociobiology tends to want to expand its lane into a highway where all lanes meet, that is incorrect. A theoretical physicist posited four different ways the multiverse might exist, shedding light in physics for those within that lane to follow. Philosophy should be doing something similar for science. Instead it is itself lost in reductionism, when it is not endlessly rehashing the work of prior philosophers. That is why it is beginning to be perceived as not really relevant to todays world.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Noted you have been posting your reply twice and now three times. Suggest you delete the duplicates.
owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:55 pm It does not not matter what Kant believed or did not believe it is not pertinent to this discussion. Noumena is used, or should be used, for what is not perceptible to the senses but is still part of our reality. Electricity or electromagnetism or the forces were not known of until the 1600s. Kant may have used the term but it is not owned by him as it is pertinent to any abstract thought that connects the non-sensory perceptible to sensory reality making it conceptual and thus perceptible and of practical use in daily life as these discoveries have been.
It does matter what Kant believed since he had provided his argument for it. If you don't agree then you have to provide a counter to Kant's argument re the Noumena.

There is no current literature that support your point, re
"Noumena is used, or should be used, for what is not perceptible to the senses but is still part of our reality."
Instead you could refer to substance theory with a philosophical realism background which is contentious and countered by Kant's thing-in-itself [aka noumenon].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
I would agree with the co-creator perspective. Humans are integral to our three dimensional reality. They are not integral to any force or emanation. To say they are would be the equivalent of saying that an Avatar was the Logos; the Intelligence in nature. He can be in sync with Intelligence; in correspondence with but not It, as no finite form can be a universal principle. As for example the Elders metaphorically the Principles of nature, being interpreted as 12 Patriarchs and 12 Disciples.
I am not familiar with Elders, 12 Patriarchs and 12 Disciples. Is it related to this?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-Four_Elders
If not pls provide some references.

However my main principle is whatever that is claim to be real, it must be verified and justified within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK is the standard.
You keep bringing God and religion into the discussion. We are discussing philosophy not theology so I do not understand why you are doing so. Maybe because you confuse Kant’s use of the word transcendental with religion. Kant caused confusion by using this word for metaphysics which is not transcendental. It is the unseen and currently unknown, not accessible to our senses but still within our dimensions and impacts every area of our lives.
I believe you are the one who triggered the 'religion' element when you stated "Kant as a Christian .." in the earlier post.
As mentioned above the forces were not known or named until towards the end of the Dark Ages. In our three dimensions there is matter and force, both which are close to be understood and classified for what they actually are. As there are three dimensions matter and force only accounts for two, the third which is mental is not understood yet. That it is related to the Principles of nature; the 24 Elders, metaphor for the Principles which are pertinent to understanding the three aspects of our three-dimensional world.

To say anything other than what has been discovered is illusion is an illusion, If it is within these dimensions how can it be an illusion. Once it is discovered and known it can be related to our sensory experience and known as conceptually true and relatable to our lives as electricity and electromagnetism is, although not known or relatable to life in the Dark Ages.

The topic of this discussion is answered by the perspective that each discipline should stay within its lane. The reductionism of sociobiology tends to want to expand its lane into a highway where all lanes meet, that is incorrect. A theoretical physicist posited four different ways the multiverse might exist, shedding light in physics for those within that lane to follow. Philosophy should be doing something similar for science. Instead it is itself lost in reductionism, when it is not endlessly rehashing the work of prior philosophers. That is why it is beginning to be perceived as not really relevant to todays world.
As I had stated, whatever the dimension, third or 10th, it must be empirically and philosophy possible.
Since it is empirically and philosophically possible, it cannot be claimed within philosophical realism, i.e. as absolute independent of the human conditions.

From what I had gathered your fundamental philosophical stance is that of philosophical realism [yes/No?] thus contrast with mine i.e. anti-philosophical realism [Kantian].
Thus whatever you conclude and it is within the ambit of PR, then we do not have an ultimate consensus of the matter.

Note again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note this thread
All Philosophies Reduced to Philosophical-Realism vs anti-Philosophical-Realism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
Post Reply