Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing

[Veritas Aequitas]

As an evolutionary default, all humans are programmed via natural selection that there is a mind-independent reality out there which humans critically depend on to facilitate their survival, i.e. search for food, look out for threats from out there.

Because it is a evolutionary default and a fundamental primal instinct, the majority of humans take that for granted and for most within the philosophy community and elsewhere it dogmatically grasp as an ideological "ism", i.e. as philosophical realism.

Philosophical realists generally are focused on reality as what is perceived, known and described and assume things pre-existed before humans and awaiting humans to discover them.

But the more higher truths from what is an evolutionary default is there are the internal processes of emergence, realization and experiences of 'what is reality' before they are perceived by the sense, known by the intellect and described via the linguistic faculty.

What is ignored here is the 13.7 billion years of physical and evolutionary forces since the Big Bang that are conditioned upon humans in the emergence and their realization of reality.

The point is, as humans evolved up to the present and continually evolve and progress, humans are slowly becoming aware, the merely relying on the evolutionary default of mind-independence is a limitation to the progress and well-being of mankind.

Note the progress, e.g. from common sense to Newtonian Classical Physics [mind-independent], Einsteinian Physics [some elements of human involvement] to QM Physics of non-locality [high degree of human interactions].
This is the evident progress from mind-independence to human interaction with reality.
_____________
There is no really real pre-existing things.
At the basic level, what is empirically verified and justified things emerged from a soup of particles which is more real than solid physical things perceived.
What is more real with an apple you see on the table is the denser cluster of particles the apple is comprised of from the totality "soup of particles" like below;



Even the above is not any ultimate reality but rather it is still an emerged and realized finer aspects of reality.

There is no ultimate mind-independent reality; all of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
_____________
Here is a typical discussion where philosophical realists are so primitive insisting there is an independent reality out there independent of any human involvements.

Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.
But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?
Have a go at answering that question without repeating your FSR and FSK claim.

Strawman again.
As mentioned a 'million' times, what I believe is this;
whatever is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human-based FSR or FSK.
As such, if there are no humans, then, there are no human-based-FSR-FSK reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity.

I have asserted a million times,
Before there are human perceptions, beliefs, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality,
there are the prior processes of emergence and realization within humans [of course via FSR and FSK] as conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of "deterministic" forces since the Big Bang.

Btw, that 13.7 billion years of deterministic" forces since the Big Bang is conditioned via the human based science-cosmological-FSR-FSK.
You just cannot disentangle the human factor from any sense of reality.

You are merely relying on an evolutionary default that there is an independent reality even if there are no humans; this is illusory and delusional in the perspective of advance knowledge, i.e. not common sense.

Note:
Natural epistemology or evolved metaphysics?
Developmental evidence for early-developed, intuitive, category-specific, incomplete, and stubborn metaphysical presumptions
PASCAL BOYER
viewtopic.php?p=673826#p673826

...........
Another Argument to support the thesis:

1. it is ASSUMED, what is the ultimate ground is there is the supposed "soup of particles" [from 13.7 billions of years] and evolutionary forces.
2. these evolutionary forces generate patterns within the soup of particles.
3. There is abiogenesis which enable the emergence of entities with a nervous system to cognize these emergence of patterns as contingent to their respective specific framework and system [FS] throughout its 3.5 billion years of history.
4. So, here is a process of the UNIQUE emergence and realization of reality specific to the respective framework and system of each entity.
5. Therefore, there is a unique emergence and realization of reality specific to humans.
6. Humans are self-conscious and has the intellectual capability to know and describe these Emergence & Realization [FSER] in their unique human ways [FSK]

So my point is there is a prior process of emergence and realization conditioned by a 13.7 billion years of physical and 3.5 billion years of organic history which is followed by its perception, knowing and describing that realized reality.

There is no noumenal [absolutely mind independent] involved at all.
What emerged and is realized is entangled with the human conditions contingent upon a 13.7 billion years of physical and 3.5 billion years of organic history.

Premise 1 above has to be ASSUMED based on the Big Bang Theory because there in no way we can confirmed what is really real beyond the Big Bang Theory, else we are caught with an infinite regress and the resulting cognitive dissonance.
It is the resulting cognitive dissonance that drive philosophical realist to end up with the noumenal as the real and theists in insisting God is the First Cause.
............

Views?

[Iwannaplato]

As an evolutionary default, all humans are programmed via natural selection that there is a mind-independent reality out there which humans critically depend on to facilitate their survival, i.e. search for food, look out for threats from out there.

As an evolutionary default, all humans are programmed via natural selection that there are objective moral facts, rather than a range of heuristics and tendencies for interpersonal behavior which vary over time and also amongst individuals. All so-far successful human groups have had a range of individual tendenices towards violence and empathy and this diversity seems inherent in every successful group.

Anyone wanting to change the ratios of aggression to empathy in all individuals is trying to spread their own subjective moral values to all other individuals. This has also been a pattern with neuronal correlates, exhibiting itself in a wide range of moral systems and views.[/size]

If your genes make you think there is a mind-independent reality: this is bad!!!
If your genes make you think there are objective moral facts: this is good!!!!
NOTE!! you must build your morality on those neuronal patterns in the brain that VA likes, and learn to suppress those he does not like!!

VA's taste in evaluating neuronal patterns is objective.
VA's conclusion that current brains are not correct in their current ratios of aggressive to empathetic neuronal patterns is objective.

Realists are dangerous.
Anti-realists are less so.
VA has excellent intution regarding this.

Moral anti-realists are bad and like Hitler.
Moral realists, like Hitler, are good as far as their sense of the reality of morality is concerned.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA,

I don't understand the following argument.

Premise: Reality has to emerge and realise before we humans can perceive, know and describe it.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not independent from the human conditions.

I think the premise is mystical gibberish. And the conclusion, even if 'the human conditions' is coherent, doesn't follow.

"mystical gibberish" that is because your thinking is so ignorant, primitive and kindergartenish.

The full range of living entities that are non-humans, e.g. viruses, bats do not perceive, know and describe reality like humans do.

As such, there is only an emergence and realization of reality within these no-humans; this is mere emergence and realization of reality is to facilitate their optimal survival without the need to perceive, know and describe like humans do.
Such feature of basic emergence and realization within non-humans are also embedded in the human brain. This proven with evidence we have similar brain structures like those of reptiles and other later evolved fishes, mammals etc.

The cortex that enable humans to perceive, know and described are later evolutionary additions to the prior reptilian and mammalian brain.

Note crudely [not precisely];

The triune model of the mammalian brain is seen as an oversimplified organizing theme by some in the field of comparative neuroscience.[15]
It continues to hold public interest because of its simplicity.
While inaccurate in many respects as an explanation for brain activity, structure and evolution,
it remains a commonly used concept as the "neocortex" represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modeling and simulation; the "limbic brain" refers to those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviors, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviors and affects that arose during the age of the mammals;
and the "reptilian brain" refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behavior and other "reptile" behaviors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain

As such it is the lowest and mid-brain that enable the emergence and realization of reality prior to the neo-cortex perceive to human consciousness, is known and subsequently described.

Premise: Reality has to emerge and realised before we humans can perceive, know and describe it.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not independent from the human conditions [human nature].

Given the above, how could you deny the above argument.

Human conditions is synonymous with human nature, i.e. what it takes to be defined as a human being within the human based science-biology FSK.

[Iwannaplato]

Note the progress, e.g. from common sense to Newtonian Classical Physics [mind-independent], Einsteinian Physics [some elements of human involvement] to QM Physics of non-locality [high degree of human interactions].
This is the evident progress from mind-independence to human interaction with reality.

But this isn't really the case. It's more or less typical Western Abrahamic/Enlightenment/Modernism propaganda.
There were animist, shamanic groups that had antirealist positions on reality.
There are parts of Hinduism and Buddhism that have antirealist positions.

VA is promoting the typical, propaganda civilized dominator history, when this conveniently leaves out how parts of the supposed progress including the killing of peoples and the dimissing of the beliefs of 'prmitive' and 'darker' peoples who had beliefs VA is just managing to arrive at here in the 21 century.

[Iwannaplato]

The Triune Brain theory, which is a realist theory of the brain, is outdated crap...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422034/

This division is perhaps best exemplified in Paul MacLean’s discredited triune model of the mammalian brain

And again, The Triune Brain theory is REALIST theory of the brain.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Denying even the possibility of noumena = only "my" appearances exist in this very moment, and there's nothing else. Not only is that solipsism, but it's a solipsism where even "my" past and future don't exist, and nothing can make any sense anyway.
It's a completely nonsensical philosophy.

Strawman!!
I had posted this a '1000' times.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving [appearances], Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

I have never claimed "only "my" appearances exist in this very moment".

Before anything is an 'appearance' that thing has to emerge and realized before it is cognized as 'appearances' 'perceived', known and described. [see above thread]
That emerged, realized and real thing is conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] before it is known via the FSK.
Because it is human-based it cannot be the logical object 'noumenon' which is a thing-by-itself or thing-in-itself.

This thing [or other minds] that emerged and realized can be mind-independent as conditioned within a human-based FSR-FSK.
As such, this sense of mind-independence [Empirical Realism] is a subset of ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism.

What is real to the ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism are all things internal and external [incl. other minds].
The ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism do not adopt this belief of external-ness and mind-independence as an ideology.
Thus, ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism cannot be a solipsist [only one's mind exists].

The Philosophical realist insist reality and things are mind-independent.
But reality and things as mind-independent is illusory.
In this case, other minds are independent of the p-realist mind.
Thus, the only real thing is the p-realists mind.
Solipsism is believing only one's mind is real.
Therefore the philosophical realist is a solipsist.

Before any one critique the above, it would be advisable the present their understanding to the above in their own words to avoid strawmaning.

[Iwannaplato]

I think your post belongs in another thread. No Atla in this one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a clue to support my OP that there are prior realization of emergences of reality before it is perceive, known and described.
There are is absolutely mind-independent objective reality out there awaiting our discovery.

Natural epistemology or evolved metaphysics?
Developmental evidence for early-developed, intuitive, category-specific, incomplete, and stubborn metaphysical presumptions
PASCAL BOYER

Link

ABSTRACT
Cognitive developmental evidence is sometimes conscripted to support “naturalized epistemology” arguments to the effect that a general epistemic stance leads children to build theory-like accounts of underlying properties of kinds.
A review of the evidence suggests that what prompts conceptual acquisition is not a general epistemic stance but a series of category-specific intuitive principles that constitute an evolved “natural metaphysics”.
This consists in a system of categories and category-specific inferential processes founded on definite biases in prototype formation.
Evidence for this system provides a better understanding of the limited “plasticity” of ontological commitments as well as a computationally plausible account of their initial state, avoiding ambiguities about innateness.
This may provide a starting point for a “naturalized epistemology” that takes into account evolved properties of human conceptual structures

(I have not read the full article yet, but agree with the concept and principles as described above)

[Atla]

Here is a clue to support my OP that there are prior realization of emergences of reality before it is perceive, known and described.
There are is absolutely mind-independent objective reality out there awaiting our discovery.

Natural epistemology or evolved metaphysics?
Developmental evidence for early-developed, intuitive, category-specific, incomplete, and stubborn metaphysical presumptions
PASCAL BOYER

Link

ABSTRACT
Cognitive developmental evidence is sometimes conscripted to support “naturalized epistemology” arguments to the effect that a general epistemic stance leads children to build theory-like accounts of underlying properties of kinds.
A review of the evidence suggests that what prompts conceptual acquisition is not a general epistemic stance but a series of category-specific intuitive principles that constitute an evolved “natural metaphysics”.
This consists in a system of categories and category-specific inferential processes founded on definite biases in prototype formation.
Evidence for this system provides a better understanding of the limited “plasticity” of ontological commitments as well as a computationally plausible account of their initial state, avoiding ambiguities about innateness.
This may provide a starting point for a “naturalized epistemology” that takes into account evolved properties of human conceptual structures

(I have not read the full article yet, but agree with the concept and principles as described above)

There's no good reason to think that our innate human conceptual structures have any bearing on objective reality, fundamentally. The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have explained, there are two sense and views of 'what is objectivity'.

Two Senses and Views of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The mind-independent view
2. The human-based FSR-FSK view.

1. The mind-independent view
The mind-independent view of objectivity and Objective Reality is grounded on an illusion.
I have demonstrated this illusory claim via many threads, e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
Hume: No Things-in-Themselves from Is
viewtopic.php?t=40991
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791
Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself
viewtopic.php?t=41012
and many other threads.

The idea of an absolute mind-independent Objective Reality as a fundamentalistic ideology is grounded on an illusion driven by an evolutionary default and desperate psychology. To keep insisting on this claim on an ideological basis is delusional.

This is why Hume and Kant applied P-Skepticism to above mind-independent Objective Reality since it is impossible to be real.
...............

2. The human-based FSR-FSK view.
The human-based FSR-FSK view is the realistic view as exemplified by the objectivity of the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

Because we must abandon the idea of an absolutely mind-independent Objective Reality out there [exists regardless of humans], we have to fall back of the basis of a human-based FSR-FSK for the emergence and realization of reality.
On this FSR-FSK basis, the innate human conceptual structures and mechanisms of the realization of reality we adopted from our ancestors since billions of years ago are of critical considerations.
See this OP.
viewtopic.php?p=645370#p645370

I have often use FSK as a shorter version for convenience.
The full version is the Framework and System of Realization[FSR] and Knowledge[FSK] of reality.

[Atla]

I have explained, there are two sense and views of 'what is objectivity'.

Two Senses and Views of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The mind-independent view
2. The human-based FSR-FSK view.

1. The mind-independent view
The mind-independent view of objectivity and Objective Reality is grounded on an illusion.
I have demonstrated this illusory claim via many threads, e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
Hume: No Things-in-Themselves from Is
viewtopic.php?t=40991
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791
Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself
viewtopic.php?t=41012
and many other threads.

The idea of an absolute mind-independent Objective Reality as a fundamentalistic ideology is grounded on an illusion driven by an evolutionary default and desperate psychology. To keep insisting on this claim on an ideological basis is delusional.

This is why Hume and Kant applied P-Skepticism to above mind-independent Objective Reality since it is impossible to be real.
...............

2. The human-based FSR-FSK view.
The human-based FSR-FSK view is the realistic view as exemplified by the objectivity of the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

Because we must abandon the idea of an absolutely mind-independent Objective Reality out there [exists regardless of humans], we have to fall back of the basis of a human-based FSR-FSK for the emergence and realization of reality.
On this FSR-FSK basis, the innate human conceptual structures and mechanisms of the realization of reality we adopted from our ancestors since billions of years ago are of critical considerations.
See this OP.
viewtopic.php?p=645370#p645370

I have often use FSK as a shorter version for convenience.
The full version is the Framework and System of Realization[FSR] and Knowledge[FSK] of reality.

No, you haven't demonstrated that objective reality is an illusion, as you can't prove a negative. That's just your guess, and my guess is that it's real. I also think that my guess is 10 times better. The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Here is an indication [re Kuhn and changes in paradigm] to the concept of emergence and realization prior to description;

The changes in perception, conceptualization, and language that Kuhn associated with changes in paradigm also fuelled his notion of world change, which further extends the contrast of the historicist approach with realism.
There is an important sense, Kuhn maintained, in which after a scientific revolution, scientists live in a different world.
This is a famously cryptic remark in Structure ([1962] 1970: 111, 121, 150), but he (2000: 264) later gives it a neo-Kantian spin: paradigms function so as to create the reality of scientific phenomena, thereby allowing scientists to engage with this reality.
On such a view, it would seem that not only the meanings but also the referents of terms are constrained by paradigmatic boundaries.

And thus, reflecting an interesting parallel with neo-Kantian logical empiricism, the idea of a paradigm-transcendent world which is investigated by scientists, and about which one might have knowledge, has no obvious cognitive content.
On this picture, empirical reality is structured by scientific paradigms, and this conflicts with the commitment of realism to knowledge of a mind-independent world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... lism/#Hist

The term “social construction” refers to any knowledge-generating process in which what counts as a fact is substantively determined by social factors, and in which different social factors would likely generate facts that are inconsistent with what is actually produced.

By making social factors an inextricable, substantive determinant of what counts as true or false in the realm of the sciences (and elsewhere), social constructivism stands opposed to the realist contention that theories can be understood as furnishing knowledge of a mind-independent world.
And as in the historicist approach, notions such as truth, reference, and ontology are here relative to particular contexts; they have no context-transcendent significance.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#SociCons

The main point above is this 3 points;
1. Kuhn maintained, in which after a scientific revolution, scientists live in a different world.
2. paradigms function so as to create the reality of scientific phenomena, thereby allowing scientists to engage with this reality.
3. In the historicist approach, notions such as truth, reference, and ontology are here relative to particular contexts; they have no context-transcendent significance.

The term paradigm is equivalent to my FSR-FSK.
While the above use "construct" and "create" [which can be mistaken literally] the more appropriate term should be 'emergence'.
Re point 3, the supposed referent and ontology emerged from the respective FSR-FSK, thus are human correlated; therefore there is no uncorrelated mind-independent reality awaiting to be discovered and therefrom described.

The above described the current ever-changing scientific facts and general facts are correlated with their respective human-based FSK; however this FSR-FSK process had been going on since the first one-celled emerged from abiogenesis 3.5 billion years ago to the present humans.

There is an Emergence & Realization of Reality [the described] within the Individual Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing [the description].

[Iwannaplato]

As an evolutionary default, all humans are programmed via natural selection that there is a mind-independent reality out there which humans critically depend on to facilitate their survival, i.e. search for food, look out for threats from out there.

Just as they are programmed as social mammals to an evolutionary default position that some actions are good and others are bad, partially mediated by the evolution of mirror neurons. If mind-independent reality, the idea of it, is problematic because it is a (mere) evolutionary default, then the supposed scientific support for objective morals via mirror neurons is also problematic. Other species manage without mirror neurons, empathy and kind treatment of other members of their own species, even their own families.

At some point you are going to need to reconcile your
on the one hand
using evolutionary defaults as OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: in the case of morals
and on the other hand
seeing evolutionary defaults as IRRATIONAL/SUBJECTIVE: in the case of mind independent reality.

Even more problematic is you consider objectivity intersubjective. Well, both the belief in mind independent reality AND moral realism are both intersubjective beliefs held by most humans.

And yes, I realize my post is off topic.

But given that you argue differently depending on the topics, as pointed out above, there is nowhere I can respond and be perfectly on topic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As an evolutionary default, all humans are programmed via natural selection that there is a mind-independent reality out there which humans critically depend on to facilitate their survival, i.e. search for food, look out for threats from out there.

Just as they are programmed as social mammals to an evolutionary default position that some actions are good and others are bad, partially mediated by the evolution of mirror neurons.
If mind-independent reality, the idea of it, is problematic because it is a (mere) evolutionary default, then the supposed scientific support for objective morals via mirror neurons is also problematic.
Other species manage without mirror neurons, empathy and kind treatment of other members of their own species, even their own families.

So many 'conflations' all over the place.

The impulse [instinct] of mind-independence as an evolutionary default is as natural as it can be and it is critical for basic survival for ALL humans.

The impulse [natural instinct] of Mind-independence as an evolutionary default only becomes problematic when it is idealized [thought] and adopted as an ideology dogmatically which made such a belief fundamentalistic and extremist.
This is why 'realists' [philosophical realists] adopt 'mind-independence' as a dogmatic ideology to the extent of 'my way or the highway' sort of attitude and in the extreme case, those opposing this ideology are killed.
Here is where,
1. theists insist upon an utmost independent real entity, i.e. God
2. realists insist the moon exists regardless there are humans or not.

At some point you are going to need to reconcile your
on the one hand
using evolutionary defaults as OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: in the case of morals
and on the other hand
seeing evolutionary defaults as IRRATIONAL/SUBJECTIVE: in the case of mind independent reality.

Even more problematic is you consider objectivity intersubjective. Well, both the belief in mind independent reality AND moral realism are both intersubjective beliefs held by most humans.

And yes, I realize my post is off topic.

But given that you argue differently depending on the topics, as pointed out above, there is nowhere I can respond and be perfectly on topic.

I don't get the above point, perhaps it is due to the conflation of various issues.

In my case, the natural evolutionary adapted mind-independence is an objective fact within the science-biology-psychology FSK grounded on intersubjectivity.

What is an objective MORAL fact [Moral Realism] to me it is conditioned upon a human-based morality-proper FSK.
Because it is human-based, a FSK as objective is grounded on intersubjectivity.
Objectivity as intersubjectivity means it is grounded on the shared-experiences-beliefs of a collective of subjects.

Note the difference between philosophical-realists* vs moral-realists.
The realism as claimed by philosophical-realists are not grounded on intersubjectivity, i.e. absolutely independent of any subject's [human] conditions, e.g. the moon exists regardless of humans.
* more appropriately "Transcendental Realists" because what is really real to them is transcendental beyond Experience.

Realism [morality] as claimed by moral-realists are grounded on intersubjectivity, i.e. no humans mean no objectivity.

[Iwannaplato]

The impulse [natural instinct] of Mind-independence as an evolutionary default only becomes problematic when it is idealized [thought] and adopted as an ideology dogmatically which made such a belief fundamentalistic and extremist.

These are all vague terms.
What are the criteria for determining if a realist is an idealogue and fundamentalist and extreme?

Below it seems like 'insisting' is enough.

In my world 'insisting' is not enough to be labeled extreme, fundamentalist, ideological and dogmatic.

Please list the criteria one must meet to be problematic.

In my case, the natural evolutionary adapted mind-independence is an objective fact within the science-biology-psychology FSK grounded on intersubjectivity.

What is an objective MORAL fact [Moral Realism] to me it is conditioned upon a human-based morality-proper FSK.
Because it is human-based, a FSK as objective is grounded on intersubjectivity.

And note

You did not respond to my pointing out that ontological realism is intersubjective and scientists and others can point to scientific FSKs in support of their position and many do.

So, unless you are an idealogue with a fundamentalist, dogmantic and extreme position, you would need to respect their position and not demean them and call them names - by your own criteria.

Objectivity as intersubjectivity means it is grounded on the shared-experiences-beliefs of a collective of subjects.

Obviously you can disagree with them, present your arguments, consider their position false.

As far as I can tell someone who is an ontological realist and who disagrees with you is considered all those pejorative terms. On what grounds?