PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

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

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:18 pm My diagnosis. VA has a Kantian bee in his bonnet. We can perceive, know and describe reality only in a human way. Therefore, the way we perceive, know and describe reality could 'emerge' only when we turned up.

But then, unlike Kant, he leaps to the conclusion that the reality we perceive, know and describe didn't exist, before we perceived, knew and described it - wouldn't exist had we not perceived, known and described it - and won't exist after we're gone.

My prescription. Trepanning to let the bee out.
This is an insult to Kant.
It's more like Berkeley.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:18 pm My diagnosis. VA has a Kantian bee in his bonnet. We can perceive, know and describe reality only in a human way. Therefore, the way we perceive, know and describe reality could 'emerge' only when we turned up.

But then, unlike Kant, he leaps to the conclusion that the reality we perceive, know and describe didn't exist, before we perceived, knew and described it - wouldn't exist had we not perceived, known and described it - and won't exist after we're gone.

My prescription. Trepanning to let the bee out.
That's not philosophy; it's science. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human- ... g-reality/
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:10 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:57 pm He expressed doubt that H2O existed before its discovery - does he also doubt that it exists now, after its discovery? Is this a case of "nothing that we think exists actually exists"? Or something else?
Unfortunately you do not understand my points.

My points are;
1. Water=H20 exists as an EMERGENCE which is conditioned upon a specific FSK [framework and system of knowledge FSK or reality FSR].

2. Water=H2O is an emergence of the common sense FSK, the scientific FSK and the Chemistry FSK.

3. As such any claim of water=H20 must imperatively be conditioned, linked and qualified to various FSK, i.e. the Chemistry being the most credible.

4. Water=H20 cannot be claimed to have pre-existed awaiting discovery independent of any FSK.

If you insists otherwise, demonstrate or justify how Water=H20 had pre-existed awaiting discovery independent of any FSK, i.e. human conditions accumulated since humans first emerged and the Big Bang.
For the life form known as human beings to emerge, come into being, evolve, or to be created, the 'thing' known as water or H2O is first needed. Therefore, and obviously, water or H2O pre-existed human beings.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:11 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:18 pm My diagnosis. VA has a Kantian bee in his bonnet. We can perceive, know and describe reality only in a human way. Therefore, the way we perceive, know and describe reality could 'emerge' only when we turned up.

But then, unlike Kant, he leaps to the conclusion that the reality we perceive, know and describe didn't exist, before we perceived, knew and described it - wouldn't exist had we not perceived, known and described it - and won't exist after we're gone.

My prescription. Trepanning to let the bee out.
That's not philosophy; it's science. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human- ... g-reality/
Thanks for the link.
Is the physical universe independent from us, or is it created by our minds, as suggested by scientist Robert Lanza?
A new study claims networks of observers are responsible for determining physical reality. The scientists propose that observers generate the structures of time and space. The paper could help yield insights into the God Equation, which attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Is there physical reality that is independent of us? Does objective reality exist at all? Or is the structure of everything, including time and space, created by the perceptions of those observing it? Such is the groundbreaking assertion of a new paper published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.

The paper’s authors include Robert Lanza, a stem cell and regenerative medicine expert, famous for the theory of biocentrism, which argues that consciousness is the driving force for the existence of the universe. He believes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that’s separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it. According to his biocentric view, space and time are a byproduct of the “whirl of information” in our head that is weaved together by our mind into a coherent experience.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human- ... g-reality/
JUNE 7, 2021
Obviously we cannot take the words from the above, we need to triangulate and reinforce one's view from as many perspectives as possible.
I have introduced many similar links in the past.

Point is the above ideas did not start with Kant [1700s] but stretched back as narrated >2500 years ago via Buddhism and Jainism.

The above concepts are not easy to understand [not necessary agree with] for it need one to do a very contrasting paradigm shift against one's current psychological dogmatism.

Those who condemned my views on the above outright without the slightest reservations are ignorant fools.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:18 pm My diagnosis. VA has a Kantian bee in his bonnet. We can perceive, know and describe reality only in a human way. Therefore, the way we perceive, know and describe reality could 'emerge' only when we turned up.

But then, unlike Kant, he leaps to the conclusion that the reality we perceive, know and describe didn't exist, before we perceived, knew and described it - wouldn't exist had we not perceived, known and described it - and won't exist after we're gone.

My prescription. Trepanning to let the bee out.
Your above is strawmaning as usual.
see my response here;
viewtopic.php?p=590188#p590188
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:41 am Right, so I get that there's a model in our minds, and I get that that model may not match reality as it is, and usually doesn't in fact,
........
but the common sense interpretation is that there is *something* that exists, that we are bumping up against when we drink and touch water, and our models are deeper and deeper attempts at understanding just what that something is.
.......
Reality is messy, but there's something really there, and I think we're doing a remarkably good job at prodding into it to discover real truths, whatever that means.
Note you are relying "there is *something*" merely on "common sense" :shock: which is most unreliable and irrational mode of knowledge. As such you have to downgrade your views on this.

The fact is 99.9% of humans [even Einstein and his likes] will naturally conclude spontaneously "there is *something*" out there based on common sense and if philosophically this is metaphysical realism. This is a critical necessity for humans to facilitate survival relative to past and current conditions, thus it is instinctive and psychologically driven.

But humans has also evolved to think and reflect rationally, deeply & widely. It is from such that the common sense "there is *something* in itself" do not make rational sense.

Since common sense naturally has failed to pass rational senses, it would be more effective to confine such ideas of "there is *something* in itself" relative to its conditions and necessity, i.e. not to insist it is the absolute truth.

The point is the deeper thought that that the 'thing-in-itself' is illusory is more effective and the idea of the emergent reality is more realistic.
Emergent reality is not as PH & gang conjectured [turned up with humans] but is conditioned upon a 13 billion years since the Big Bang [given your nic, you may not agree] emerged.

At least you critiqued my ideas with some reservations, in contrast to the other ignorant fools who condemned my views outright without any reservations.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:10 am At least you critiqued my ideas with some reservations, in contrast to the other ignorant fools who condemned my views outright without any reservations.
He probably hasn't seen your "oughtness to breathe" argument yet, so give him some time.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:10 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:41 am Right, so I get that there's a model in our minds, and I get that that model may not match reality as it is, and usually doesn't in fact,
........
but the common sense interpretation is that there is *something* that exists, that we are bumping up against when we drink and touch water, and our models are deeper and deeper attempts at understanding just what that something is.
.......
Reality is messy, but there's something really there, and I think we're doing a remarkably good job at prodding into it to discover real truths, whatever that means.
Note you are relying "there is *something*" merely on "common sense" :shock: which is most unreliable and irrational mode of knowledge. As such you have to downgrade your views on this.

The fact is 99.9% of humans [even Einstein and his likes] will naturally conclude spontaneously "there is *something*" out there based on common sense and if philosophically this is metaphysical realism. This is a critical necessity for humans to facilitate survival relative to past and current conditions, thus it is instinctive and psychologically driven.

But humans has also evolved to think and reflect rationally, deeply & widely. It is from such that the common sense "there is *something* in itself" do not make rational sense.

Since common sense naturally has failed to pass rational senses, it would be more effective to confine such ideas of "there is *something* in itself" relative to its conditions and necessity, i.e. not to insist it is the absolute truth.

The point is the deeper thought that that the 'thing-in-itself' is illusory is more effective and the idea of the emergent reality is more realistic.
Emergent reality is not as PH & gang conjectured [turned up with humans] but is conditioned upon a 13 billion years since the Big Bang [given your nic, you may not agree] emerged.

At least you critiqued my ideas with some reservations, in contrast to the other ignorant fools who condemned my views outright without any reservations.
You haven't really refuted the common sense view, you've just declared it not rational.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by bobmax »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:20 am VA

Prove that H2O-in-itself didn't exist as real by itself before it emerged as a fact entangled with the human conditions as conditioned within a credible chemistry framework and system of knowledge.
H2O in-it-self exists neither before nor now nor ever.

Because what is in itself does not depend on anything other than itself.
While what exists exists precisely because it refers to something else.

It is always something else that establishes existence.

That which has no foundation other than itself does not exist.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:10 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:41 am Right, so I get that there's a model in our minds, and I get that that model may not match reality as it is, and usually doesn't in fact,
........
but the common sense interpretation is that there is *something* that exists, that we are bumping up against when we drink and touch water, and our models are deeper and deeper attempts at understanding just what that something is.
.......
Reality is messy, but there's something really there, and I think we're doing a remarkably good job at prodding into it to discover real truths, whatever that means.
Note you are relying "there is *something*" merely on "common sense" :shock: which is most unreliable and irrational mode of knowledge. As such you have to downgrade your views on this.

The fact is 99.9% of humans [even Einstein and his likes] will naturally conclude spontaneously "there is *something*" out there based on common sense and if philosophically this is metaphysical realism. This is a critical necessity for humans to facilitate survival relative to past and current conditions, thus it is instinctive and psychologically driven.

But humans has also evolved to think and reflect rationally, deeply & widely. It is from such that the common sense "there is *something* in itself" do not make rational sense.

Since common sense naturally has failed to pass rational senses, it would be more effective to confine such ideas of "there is *something* in itself" relative to its conditions and necessity, i.e. not to insist it is the absolute truth.

The point is the deeper thought that that the 'thing-in-itself' is illusory is more effective and the idea of the emergent reality is more realistic.
Emergent reality is not as PH & gang conjectured [turned up with humans] but is conditioned upon a 13 billion years since the Big Bang [given your nic, you may not agree] emerged.

At least you critiqued my ideas with some reservations, in contrast to the other ignorant fools who condemned my views outright without any reservations.
If, as I agree, there's no such thing as absolute truth - because the expression is incoherent - then there's no contrast between absolute truth and (what we call) truth.

And, by exactly the same argument: if, as I agree, there's no such thing as a thing-in-itself - because the expression is incoherent - then there's no contrast between a thing-in-itself and (what we call) a thing.

Yet VA's (supposedly Kantian) argument depends on both rejecting and invoking these fantasy distinctions.

'There are no such things as absolute truth or things-in-themselves. So you're fools to think that what you call truth and things are absolute truth and things-in-themselves.'

But we don't. We have no idea what absolute truth and things-in-themselves could possibly be. Like VA, we deny their existence. But VA is distractedly fond of his straw twins.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Sculptor »

bobmax wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:07 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:20 am VA

Prove that H2O-in-itself didn't exist as real by itself before it emerged as a fact entangled with the human conditions as conditioned within a credible chemistry framework and system of knowledge.
H2O in-it-self exists neither before nor now nor ever.

Because what is in itself does not depend on anything other than itself.
While what exists exists precisely because it refers to something else.

It is always something else that establishes existence.

That which has no foundation other than itself does not exist.
Thigh slappingly hilarious.
What a wonderful contribution
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:41 am Right, so I get that there's a model in our minds, and I get that that model may not match reality as it is, and usually doesn't in fact,

but the common sense interpretation is that there is *something* that exists,
I tend to agree. And I truly doubt that the implications of taking the other position are ones that VA is ready to defend. He wants to use scientific research conclusions when he sees fit and those of course generally assume both the existence of not only dich an sich but futher that their research is about the ding an sich.

that we are bumping up against when we drink and touch water, and our models are deeper and deeper attempts at understanding just what that something is.
Yes, and wise of you to go for touch contact. I notice a habit of most people who want to deny the existence of an independent reality to focus on vision and color. With that we can have a qualia party, but it's a whole different thing with tactile sensing. I tend to use a running through a field with clumps of grass and holes and how I do better than blind people, especially newly blind people. It seems like my seeing, even, is giving me information about ding an sich.
If we put quantum mechanics aside for a moment, I think we have a lot of really solid evidence that our model of atoms and how they form bonds with each other is not JUST a model, but that it has a strong tethering to something that *really is happening*. In fact, that's largely the point of the development of this model in the first place.
Yes, I am not denying chemistry or saying there is a good position to do so. It's more like conceding that when we refer to things, the images we have in our minds and our sense of what they are may have nothing to do with what they are like. That we can make salt out of sodium and chloride doesn't get ruined by this. I am often a kind of pragmatist in relation to knowledge. So, in a way I don't care about ontology. I don't have VA's position, because his is ontological.

It was a bad tactic on his side. He could have simply been agnostic
I know some people like to take the very philosophical approach to say that science isn't about discovering truths about how the world works, but just about developing models that make useful predictions. There's validity to that, but if you've ever read the writings of real scientists, plenty of them are really and truly drawn by the idea of understanding reality, real reality. It's naive, perhaps, when compared against the ultra pragmatic view of science as a useful tool that doesn't tell strict truths, but that naivety is pervasive among the most intelligent, most accomplished scientists, the biggest drivers of scientific advancement.
And you take up similar issues here. I should have waited to read. Well, it's mainly the physicists for obvious reasons who are much more open to ontological surprises and variety. And many of the best drivers there had ideas and models that radically challenge most people's realism
In any case, here we are in a philosophy forum, so it seems to me if he was clear and consistant his positions would not be ridiculous. And I think a real dialogue could take place.
And so our atomic model is in that vein. Yes, it is a model, but the functioning of that model and the root of it may still be literally and naively correct. And the success of the model - and it has indeed been remarkably successful - is further indication that the model has some real tethering to what's really going on.
I think actually the physicists might not agree with that. Of course, they're a diverse bunch, but I think they would see the model as effective for some things, but ontologically off.
I accept a moderately naive vision of reality. I accept the reality of weakly emergent phenomena. I accept that, when a model has as much evidence as atoms do, that that model is probably saying something really true about reality. My exact mental picture of it almost certainly doesn't identically resemble what's really happening, but I think there's enough reason to think that aspects of the model are basically and generally naively correct.

Reality is messy, but there's something really there, and I think we're doing a remarkably good job at prodding into it to discover real truths, whatever that means.
I generally agree, though as with a fluid, variable ontology that as a pragmatist I am not very attached to.

My main point in bringing things up is that as long as people are going to regularly interact with VA, it might be useful to find the best possible explanation of what he is saying.

That when we refer to and think about reality we are thinking and refering to 'things' that are a mingling of our advanced primate minds filters, sensory organs, our time bound nature (we experience time in sequence, not say as a block universe). Even all scientists have a kind of shared subjectivity in how they refer to things and how they must experience them given our bodies and minds. This does not mean that scientific knowledge is merely subjective, just that the phenomena (that interaction, the experiences of reality) is specifically human. And when we talk about it, we are always talking about something that is a mix of us and it.

I think in some way VA believes something like this. It is not totally wrong, has seeds of something important in it. Not for an organic chemist analysing a hormone in a new species of orchid, but for philosophers and people dealing with ontology. The position itself is not in the least a threat to that chemist's work.

So, if VA gets dismissed, he thinks you are missing a lot of stuff. Much less of it has value than he thinks, but his stubborness may have a seed of validity in it.

And obviously note: I am not sending bits of advice to VA. He doesn't read me, but I probably wouldn't anyway. I don't think he can tweak his communication approach.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:43 pm
I think I'm vibing with you, for the most part.

It's not my view that all of our models are real as such, not exactly, but it's more about this "bumping up against reality" bit - the bit where you were talking about being blind but touching things. And even our eyes really are touching things : our eyes are touching photons, giving us information about things separated in space from us, like a blind persons cane gives him information about things a meter away from him. That's all really Central to my point of view.

It's not my view that an apple is exactly what we think it is. Our experience of red, and our modelling of 3d space and the 3d space an apple occupies - all of that is somewhat illusory, it's a user interface our brain makes to make sense of our sensory input

But it's still bumping up against something real.

And the alternative to "our experience is us bumping up against something real" is that none of our experience has anything to do with reality at all. Which I will say up front is a completely valid train of thought, BUT with some caveats.

First of all, between the two options, (we're bumping up against something real Vs we're not), it's my opinion, though it may be hard for me to defend, that Occam's razor says we ARE bumping up against something real. Not with certainty, but it's the simpler explanation. Because if it's not, then where is all this coming from, how is it so consistent? I think it's much simpler to say that the consistency of all this stuff we're bumping up against constantly is rooted in some sort of underlying "reality", but "reality" could have all sorts of meanings there.

And, if we're not bumping up against something real, which is at best 50% likely, then that's a bit of a philosophical dead end. "This might all be fake" is a valid statement, but... then what? There's no where to go after that. If you accept it's all fake, then you can torture another person without any concern that it's actually another living and feeling person getting hurt, BUT there's always that 50% likelihood that it's a real person. And if you're at all like me, that is just unacceptable, right?

All the interesting thought happens in the other 50%, the 50% where we are bumping up against something real, in a shared space with other real feeling beings. And as that's the only 50% where I have anything to think about, and it's the only 50% that has anything to offer me, it's where I live. I live in that 50% (which I again must reiterate is much more likely than 50% really, imo, but I probably can't defend that well).

And the fact that he's talking to me means, in a pragmatic sense, he lives in that other 50% as well. I assume he doesn't believe he's talking to a figment of his imagination. Which means that when he reads the words I'm writing, even he thinks he's bumping up against something real! The pixels hitting his eyes, no matter the exact form they take, no matter their exact manifestation in "reality", either came from a real thinking being named Flannel Jesus, or they didn't. And if they did, then he's bumping up against something real when he reads my words - namely, ME! And if he's not bumping up against something real, of if he thinks he's not, then he must think he's just talking to himself, or to nobody.

I'm not sure he is quite on the same page with us, where we understand that "bumping up against something real" is very distinguished from "my mental model of reality is fully real and accurate and that's really how the world works." Maybe that's where the disconnect is coming from.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:08 pm And the fact that he's talking to me means, in a pragmatic sense, he lives in that other 50% as well. I assume he doesn't believe he's talking to a figment of his imagination.
I took this tack in response to him once. I think it is an interesting one. And for anyone who has a belief system in that group. I don't think it's the magic bullet, but it definitely needs to be dealt with ESPECIALLY since he is always telling us about our beliefs, our brains, what is going on inside us and so on.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:59 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:08 pm And the fact that he's talking to me means, in a pragmatic sense, he lives in that other 50% as well. I assume he doesn't believe he's talking to a figment of his imagination.
I took this tack in response to him once. I think it is an interesting one. And for anyone who has a belief system in that group. I don't think it's the magic bullet, but it definitely needs to be dealt with ESPECIALLY since he is always telling us about our beliefs, our brains, what is going on inside us and so on.
Right, so we all believe that at the very least, we're bumping into each other somehow, including apparently him - even he believes that.

This space that we share that allows us to bump into each other - whatever it really looks like, whatever it really is underneath it all - that's what I call reality.

And even if it's a simulation, if we're all still really here feeling these things, it's still reality. The precise nature of our shared reality doesn't necessarily make it not-reality.

Like, let's imagine that all of this is in God's mind, and it's him experiencing his own mental creation through all of our eyes in turn - I still call that reality. We still share this space, we still experience things and bump into each other, and this space still apparently has rules. That's reality. Even if it's "god's imagination", it's reality.

There are cases where I don't like words to be too loosely defined because it gets in the way of saying anything meaningful, but I think the word "reality" is one of the places where we have to allow a loose definition like this. Where even things like "god's imagination" count.

I'm an atheist, for the record, I'm just illustrating what I think is an acceptable scope for the term reality.
Post Reply