Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Walker »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 9:51 am
Walker wrote:Is that what realism means?
Well, no. Though there a number of realisms and realist positions on things.
Well dang it all, just my luck.

Absolutes are the stuff of principles. They are what enable a scientist like Scotty to say: Under properly specified conditions, outcome is 100% certain, Captain.

That 100% certainty represents an absolute, in mathematical terms. :|

Tinkerers try for it with computers for their 100-year climate predictions, and call such video-gaming, science. However, when destroying an economy, claims of certainty shouldn't be backed by gaming.

It's actually more scientific, and philosophical, to observe that unto every life a little rain must fall, because everyone knows suffering. The question is, is that problem? Suffering cannot be, when suffering is not a problem.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12382
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 10:09 am "The unknowable, posited Moon-in-itself" is an illusory hallucination you cannot produce for empirical verifications at all. Your moon-in-itself is merely noises to soothe your cognitive dissonances.

OTOH what is moon to me and the rational is merely 'what is the moon' physically as verified and justified with empirical evidence from the scientific Framework and System plus philosophical reasonings to avoid Scientism.
100% of science is consistent with the idea of the Moon-in-itself. Positing is justified, not positing it is unjustified.
:shock: Why did you get that idea that science is with the idea of the Moon-in-itself? that is gnat-thinking!

The scientific fact of what-is-moon is IMPERATIVELY conditioned to the scientific framework and system.
Thus is it correct to state it is a moon-in-science or moon-by-science based on empirical evidences NOT moon-in-itself which is ungrounded.

If the moon is said to be independent of humans by science, it is a relative-independence because it is ultimately conditioned by human-constructed scientific framework and system.
No scientists [Physicists or astronomers] will insist a moon-in-itself exists, rather they have to qualify to 'science said so' i.e.
the scientific fact of what-is-moon is conditioned to the scientific framework and system.

If any scientists were to claim a moon-in-itself exists in absolute independence, then they would have step outside the scientific system and make it their personal claim as a metaphysical realist. It is the same with any scientist who personally claim god exists as real.
I have already explained 'absolute independence" above. You have selective attention deficit thus cannot grasp it.

Btw, In one perspective I adopt realism as well, i.e. Empirical Realism where there is an external reality but the ultimate is there is no reality-in-itself thus no moon-in-itself.
Here is one reason I need to use 'absolute independence' as opposed to my relative independence.

My sense of absolute independence of realism is in the context of Peter et. al. claims there are no independent moral facts which in a way, Peter is insisting it is absolute.

If not lying, where are your references or even your personal definition?
I wasn't asking for your confused explanation-attempts. I said SHOW ME that realism indeed is concerned with absolute independence.
Note there are many forms of 'realism'.
The OP is dealing with Metaphysical Realism. Read the OP and the next 2 posts.
Your problem is you want to be fed like a toddler when I told you I have already provided the answer.

First let me know what is your meaning of absolute so we don't talk pass each other.

For me, what is 'absolute' means not relative, in this case not related and entangled with the human conditions.

I repeat the definition of Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism as in the OP;
According to Metaphysical [/Philosophical] realism, the world is as it is independent of how humans or other inquiring agents take it to be.
The objects the world contains, together with their properties and the relations they enter into, fix the world’s nature and these objects [together with the properties they have and the relations they enter into] exist independently of our ability to discover they do.
Generic Realism:
a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
I also quoted a list of Challenges to Metaphysical Realism here;
viewtopic.php?p=574525#p574525

One example of the challenges is this;
The first Anti-Realist arguments based on explicitly semantic considerations were advanced by Michael Dummett and Hilary Putnam.
These are:
I. Dummett’s Manifestation Argument: the cognitive and linguistic behaviour of an agent provides no evidence that Realist mind/world links exist;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real ... challenge/
Metaphysical Realists do not often use the term 'absolute' but their definitions and context imply their is a claim of absolute independence in contrast to relative independence or causal independence.
Note the phrase "provides no evidence that Realist mind/world links exist," reject any relative independence or causal independence, thus the reference is the realists' independence has to be absolute independence.

As I had stated in one perspective I agree with Empirical Realism [Kantian] which entailed relative independence.

As such it is critical that I use the term 'absolute independence' to differentiate it from relative or 'causal' independence.
Or do you honestly think you speak for philosophers worldwide. If yes, then we have an even bigger problem at hand.
What kind of thinking is that??
So far I am the one who has been quoting references left right and center.
If it is my term, e.g. absolute independence I had qualified it is mine and I have justified why the term 'absolute independence' is absolutely necessary to avoid misunderstanding.

Btw, you have not define what you understand by what is realism re the OP.
If your 'realism' is different from the OP, then you are strawmaning and it is off topic.
Atla
Posts: 6696
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 5:03 am :shock: Why did you get that idea that science is with the idea of the Moon-in-itself? that is gnat-thinking!

The scientific fact of what-is-moon is IMPERATIVELY conditioned to the scientific framework and system.
Thus is it correct to state it is a moon-in-science or moon-by-science based on empirical evidences NOT moon-in-itself which is ungrounded.

If the moon is said to be independent of humans by science, it is a relative-independence because it is ultimately conditioned by human-constructed scientific framework and system.
No scientists [Physicists or astronomers] will insist a moon-in-itself exists, rather they have to qualify to 'science said so' i.e.
the scientific fact of what-is-moon is conditioned to the scientific framework and system.

If any scientists were to claim a moon-in-itself exists in absolute independence, then they would have step outside the scientific system and make it their personal claim as a metaphysical realist. It is the same with any scientist who personally claim god exists as real.
Moon-in-itself has nothing to do with absolute independence. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy. Didn't even read the rest of your comment, how can someone be SO wrong.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12382
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 6:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 5:03 am :shock: Why did you get that idea that science is with the idea of the Moon-in-itself? that is gnat-thinking!

The scientific fact of what-is-moon is IMPERATIVELY conditioned to the scientific framework and system.
Thus is it correct to state it is a moon-in-science or moon-by-science based on empirical evidences NOT moon-in-itself which is ungrounded.

If the moon is said to be independent of humans by science, it is a relative-independence because it is ultimately conditioned by human-constructed scientific framework and system.
No scientists [Physicists or astronomers] will insist a moon-in-itself exists, rather they have to qualify to 'science said so' i.e.
the scientific fact of what-is-moon is conditioned to the scientific framework and system.

If any scientists were to claim a moon-in-itself exists in absolute independence, then they would have step outside the scientific system and make it their personal claim as a metaphysical realist. It is the same with any scientist who personally claim god exists as real.
Moon-in-itself has nothing to do with absolute independence. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy. Didn't even read the rest of your comment, how can someone be SO wrong.
That is your escape route in fearing exposure of your ignorance. You are very lost with respect to the OP.

You should at least justify your position, why,
"Moon-in-itself has nothing to do with absolute independence."
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6665
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Walker wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:34 pm Absolutes are the stuff of principles. They are what enable a scientist like Scotty to say: Under properly specified conditions, outcome is 100% certain, Captain.
He's an engineer and people will say anything, even engineers though their probably more cautious at work.
Tinkerers try for it with computers for their 100-year climate predictions, and call such video-gaming, science. However, when destroying an economy, claims of certainty shouldn't be backed by gaming.

It's actually more scientific, and philosophical, to observe that unto every life a little rain must fall, because everyone knows suffering. The question is, is that problem? Suffering cannot be, when suffering is not a problem.
I think 'absolute' is generally expressive rather than literal. I see it used as a hedge here. Maybe they can make a good argument it is true, so I'll make it seem like they need to demonstrate it is absolutely true. Meanwhile the train is leaving the station. It might be an illusion, but sometimes I need to get to work.
Atla
Posts: 6696
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 6:54 am
Atla wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 6:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 5:03 am :shock: Why did you get that idea that science is with the idea of the Moon-in-itself? that is gnat-thinking!

The scientific fact of what-is-moon is IMPERATIVELY conditioned to the scientific framework and system.
Thus is it correct to state it is a moon-in-science or moon-by-science based on empirical evidences NOT moon-in-itself which is ungrounded.

If the moon is said to be independent of humans by science, it is a relative-independence because it is ultimately conditioned by human-constructed scientific framework and system.
No scientists [Physicists or astronomers] will insist a moon-in-itself exists, rather they have to qualify to 'science said so' i.e.
the scientific fact of what-is-moon is conditioned to the scientific framework and system.

If any scientists were to claim a moon-in-itself exists in absolute independence, then they would have step outside the scientific system and make it their personal claim as a metaphysical realist. It is the same with any scientist who personally claim god exists as real.
Moon-in-itself has nothing to do with absolute independence. You are strawmanning like half of philosophy. Didn't even read the rest of your comment, how can someone be SO wrong.
That is your escape route in fearing exposure of your ignorance. You are very lost with respect to the OP.

You should at least justify your position, why,
"Moon-in-itself has nothing to do with absolute independence."
Projecting as usual, it's your ignorance that's on full display as usual.
What should I justify? You're the one who made up this whole absolute independence nonsense. You still haven't shown any definitions that would back up your claims.

Fine I went back and read a few more lines
For me, what is 'absolute' means not relative, in this case not related and entangled with the human conditions.
Try to make sense. How many various positions are you conflating here?

By saying that realists believe in absolute independence, you are implicitly calling millions or billions of people idiots. What is your justification for that?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by popeye1945 »

The nature of the real must be identified as what metaphysical realists are talking about, apparent reality or ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is said to be a place of no things, this is modern physics. The apparent reality is a biological readout and entirely the projection of a conscious subject of its biological reactions to aspects of ultimate reality. So, ultimate reality is utterly independent of biological consciousness while the apparent reality is utterly dependent upon biological consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12382
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:44 am The nature of the real must be identified as what metaphysical realists are talking about, apparent reality or ultimate reality.
Ultimate reality is said to be a place of no things, this is modern physics.
The apparent reality is a biological readout and entirely the projection of a conscious subject of its biological reactions to aspects of ultimate reality.
So, ultimate reality is utterly independent of biological consciousness while the apparent reality is utterly dependent upon biological consciousness.
Note my post here

I stated;

As with "what is fact", there are two readings of "reality-as-it-really-is", i.e.
1. the realists' version which is not realistic per se.
2. the anti-realists' version [Kantian] which is realistic per se.

It is only when one cling to the realists' version of what-is-reality-as-it-is that one has to logically therefrom infer there is an ultimate-reality.
This hasty inference of reifying an illusory thing-in-itself is merely a psychological impulse to soothe an inherent cognitive dissonance.

With the Kantian version [anti-realism] of "reality-as-it-really-is" there is nothing to compare to except what-is-reality-is-what-is-experienced [WIRIWIE]. This must be supported by rational philosophical reasonings within the respective FSKs.
As such what is reality to any other living entities from one-celled to possible human-like aliens of 1000x more intelligent than humans, what is reality is confined to their respective entangled WIRIWIE.

What is critical for Kantian "reality-as-it-is" is whether the experience of it and its conception can be transformed into actions net-good on a continuous trend optimally for humanity.
One of this is the moral FSK to guide moral actions systematically [note the 'S' in FSK] for the net-good on a continuous trend optimally for humanity.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6665
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:54 am With the Kantian version [anti-realism]
I find Kant's status as an anti-realist controversial..
Kant is an empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us. He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about the mind’s role in making nature. All discursive, rational beings must conceive of the physical world as spatially and temporally unified, he argues. And the table of categories is derived from the most basic, universal forms of logical inference, Kant believes. Therefore, it must be shared by all rational beings. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects. Hence, objective knowledge of the scientific or natural world is possible. Indeed, Kant believes that the examples of Newton and Galileo show it is actual. So Berkeley’s claims that we do not know objects outside of us and that such knowledge is impossible are both mistaken.
On the standard view, idealism and realism are incompatible philosophical theories. For Kant, however, they are not. He rather claims that transcendental idealism and empirical realism form a unity, i.e., only in combination they demonstrate that objects of external perception are real: Transcendental idealists hold that the objects as we represent them in space and time are appearances and not things-in-themselves. This, according to Kant, implies empirical realism, i.e., the view that the represented objects of our spatio-temporal system of experience are real beings outside us. Whereas transcendental idealism lays out the way we represent objects, i.e., the transcendental conditions of our cognition of them, empirical realism expounds that objects, although cognizable only under these conditions, exist independently of us in space and time. Therefore, Kant argues, the combination of transcendental idealism and empirical realism avoids sceptical consequences with respect to the existence of the external world.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas,

It really does not matter what organism one is considering its reality will be biologically based. The rest is non-sense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12382
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 6:13 am Veritas,
It really does not matter what organism one is considering its reality will be biologically based. The rest is non-sense.
I don't believe the 'rest' is non-sense because the biological fundamentals manifest variably in a reality of different environments and circumstances. As such we cannot generalize but rather qualify to which entity we are referring to.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by popeye1945 »

The reality of each organism is of necessity a biological readout of their environment, projected as their apparent reality. Granted it is different from organism to organism to the degree that their biologies differ in adapting to the niches found in the overall environment.
Post Reply