Morality: P-Realists are 'Children'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The OP is an attention getter, it should read,
Children are instinctually philosophical realists, i.e. grounded on an absolutely mind-independent reality.
This is the basis p-realists reject the existence of objective moral facts thus morality cannot be objective.
But the p-realists' rejection of moral facts are grounded on a childish philosophical ideology which is driven by an evolutionary default grounded on an illusion.

Here are clues to the above

Children are Realists

It hardly needs be added that perceptual representation as of bodies does not constitutively require representation of mind-independence or of a seems/is distinction.
Human children have perceptions as of bodies before they have any representation of mind-independence as such.
Few if any non-human animals represent mind or mind-independence—ever.
Bodies are mind-independent, of course.
We come to understand this point once we acquire the concepts needed to raise the issue.
Perceiving and conceiving bodies as such does not require a capacity to understand the point.
Children’s representations are realist in this very basic sense: they represent a mind-independent reality without engaging in or presupposing any reference to mind.
Children and non-human animals are realists not because they represent bodies as mind-independent, but because they cannot help but ignore idealism.
We as philosophers should emulate the children.

Origins of Objectivity: pg. 549
Tyler Burge

Children are driven by instincts of the evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is primal, primordial and of proto-reason, i.e. crude, basis, pure reason [Kant’s critique].
"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Some details of the book;

https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Objectiv ... 0199581398
Tyler Burge presents a substantial, original study of what it is for individuals to represent the physical world with the most primitive sort of objectivity.
By reflecting on the science of perception and related psychological and biological sciences, he gives an account of constitutive conditions for perceiving the physical world, and thus aims to locate origins of representational mind.
Origins of Objectivity illuminates several long-standing, central issues in philosophy, and provides a wide-ranging account of relations between human and animal psychologies.

The emphasis here is on psychology of perception in as much as it is on philosophy.

The above is also related to my
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but it is not as deep as my proposals because Burge is still a philosophical realist believing in an absolute mind-independent reality.

Views? Discuss?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

A related point I raised somewhere.
A Necessity of Deep Learning

Moral Stance & Deep Learning, Encoding?
viewtopic.php?t=40692

As I had stated before, the philosophical realist's stance of absolutely mind-independence is an evolutionary default embedded deep in the brain, it is so primal, dominant and forceful that you [& other philosophical realists] are unable to understand the more evolutionary advanced position of the ANTI-philosophical_Realist's stance.

Instead of ontology [illusory] I have to bring in psychology [more realistic] to explain the above.

Philosophical_realists are driven by an evolutionary default with very dominant primal that hinder their learning and cognition to a very shallow, narrow, dogmatic, rigid knowledge base, becomes very ideological and fortified with a strong defense mechanism.

What is needed for philosophical_realists to understand the broader, deeper and more realistic aspects of reality is the "deep learning" [& other modern methods of processing knowledge, encoding, etc.] of AI which human already had been doing naturally.
There is a ton of research on this subject out there in the internet.

[Iwannaplato]

Wow, more ad hom idiocy.

Well, babies are anti-realists. They don't believe in object permanence. And until they get through the sensory motor stage, Piaget-wise, they are in a type of non-realism.

So, do we get to conclude that while realists are children, anti-realists are babies?

Peter Holmes is a child. VA is a baby.

I'm a baby too.

I'm so angry, you're all poo poo heads.

Sorry just spit up my apple sauce.

[Iwannaplato]

What is needed for philosophical_realists to understand the broader, deeper and more realistic aspects of reality is the "deep learning" [& other modern methods of processing knowledge, encoding, etc.] of AI which human already had been doing naturally.

Word salad.

[Iwannaplato]

Instead of ontology [illusory] I have to bring in psychology [more realistic] to explain the above.

An antirealist is saying that ontology is illusory. One wonders if he understand that he repeatedly argues in favor of an ontological position.

Saying psychology is more realistic than ontology - apart from being a realist conclusion and an ontological position - is like saying something like your love is sweeter than an orange.

[Skepdick]

What is needed for philosophical_realists to understand the broader, deeper and more realistic aspects of reality is the "deep learning" [& other modern methods of processing knowledge, encoding, etc.] of AI which human already had been doing naturally.

Word salad.

Not really. It's par for the course for the sort of intuitionism which manifests as expressivism.

You develop deep insight into the inner workings of your own intuition, and then you encode and communicate this insight in a manner that is testable/reproducible.

It's just (computer) science - no philosophy required.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do. --Donald Knuth

[Skepdick]

Instead of ontology [illusory] I have to bring in psychology [more realistic] to explain the above.

An antirealist is saying that ontology is illusory. One wonders if he understand that he repeatedly argues in favor of an ontological position.

Saying psychology is more realistic than ontology - apart from being a realist conclusion and an ontological position - is like saying something like your love is sweeter than an orange.

It's like you can't actually tell the difference between ontology thougth of as something invented; and ontology thought of as something discovered.

Such a common error for philosophers who've never invented any ontologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_engineering

And if you'd like a typical example of an engineered ontology look no further than the standard model of physics. Key word "model". Yes, electrons and positrons are "illusionary" in the sense that they may very well not exist, but who cares? They are useful fictions.

[Atla]

The OP is an attention getter, it should read,
Children are instinctually philosophical realists, i.e. grounded on an absolutely mind-independent reality.
This is the basis p-realists reject the existence of objective moral facts thus morality cannot be objective.
But the p-realists' rejection of moral facts are grounded on a childish philosophical ideology which is driven by an evolutionary default grounded on an illusion.

Here are clues to the above

Children are Realists

It hardly needs be added that perceptual representation as of bodies does not constitutively require representation of mind-independence or of a seems/is distinction.
Human children have perceptions as of bodies before they have any representation of mind-independence as such.
Few if any non-human animals represent mind or mind-independence—ever.
Bodies are mind-independent, of course.
We come to understand this point once we acquire the concepts needed to raise the issue.
Perceiving and conceiving bodies as such does not require a capacity to understand the point.
Children’s representations are realist in this very basic sense: they represent a mind-independent reality without engaging in or presupposing any reference to mind.
Children and non-human animals are realists not because they represent bodies as mind-independent, but because they cannot help but ignore idealism.
We as philosophers should emulate the children.

Origins of Objectivity: pg. 549
Tyler Burge

Children are driven by instincts of the evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is primal, primordial and of proto-reason, i.e. crude, basis, pure reason [Kant’s critique].
"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Some details of the book;

https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Objectiv ... 0199581398
Tyler Burge presents a substantial, original study of what it is for individuals to represent the physical world with the most primitive sort of objectivity.
By reflecting on the science of perception and related psychological and biological sciences, he gives an account of constitutive conditions for perceiving the physical world, and thus aims to locate origins of representational mind.
Origins of Objectivity illuminates several long-standing, central issues in philosophy, and provides a wide-ranging account of relations between human and animal psychologies.

The emphasis here is on psychology of perception in as much as it is on philosophy.

The above is also related to my
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but it is not as deep as my proposals because Burge is still a philosophical realist believing in an absolute mind-independent reality.

Views? Discuss?

If you knew what the f you are talking about, you could have mounted a fairly successful attack on "philosophical realism" years ago.

[Iwannaplato]

If you knew what the f you are talking about, you could have mounted a fairly successful attack on "philosophical realism" years ago.

You're missing the point. Monists are like foetuses: they are floating in oneness. So they are at an earlier evolutionary stage. ONTOLOGY repeats phylogeny. He's an anti-realist epigeneticist.

[Skepdick]

Monists are like foetuses: they are floating in oneness.

Buddhist monk goes to a bagel shop and says "Make me one with everything"

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, Jesus, only meiosis is dualist, mitosis is not.
I'm alone with things less developed than gametes.
It's like discussing with Golgi apparatuses.

Oh, sorry. I mean, 'Golgi apparatuses'.
We must avoid the insult and the ad hom.
Citation marks are magic wands.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wow, more ad hom idiocy.

Well, babies are anti-realists. They don't believe in object permanence. And until they get through the sensory motor stage, Piaget-wise, they are in a type of non-realism.

So, do we get to conclude that while realists are children, anti-realists are babies?

Peter Holmes is a child. VA is a baby.

I'm a baby too.

I'm so angry, you're all poo poo heads.

Sorry just spit up my apple sauce.

What nonsense are you spewing?
That is what I don't like when someone gets angry due to his own ignorance and incompetence and direct his anger at others.

Babies are programmed with permanence of the external environment that they depend on for their survival. Babies cannot survive on their own internal self.
For example the mother [instinctively identified] that it repeatedly cried to be nursed during babyhood has to be sensed as an external permanent source. This is so evident.

I wrote all humans since birth are programmed within their DNA with a sense of external_ness they they depend on for their survival.
It is this sense of externalness [mind-independence] that philosophical realists cling to as a extreme ideology; some [not all] will even kill those who oppose such an ideology.

It is only only PH but the above refer [as in OP] to all philosophical realists clinging on to an evolutionary default grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is needed for philosophical_realists to understand the broader, deeper and more realistic aspects of reality is the "deep learning" [& other modern methods of processing knowledge, encoding, etc.] of AI which human already had been doing naturally.

Word salad.

The above merely exposed your ignorance and state of competence in learning i.e. related to the related issues in this forum.

How I Get TOP GRADES With ENCODING & ACTIVE RECALL - A Practical Step-By-Step Guide
Dr Alex Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VklLcNaJpXc

Cognitive Load Just KILLED Active Recall


What is the first step of deep learning?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IVBhjBSc ... ture=share

Distinguishing surface from deep learning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FS7NQpegMM

In the philosophical contexts involving the issues discussed here, philosophical realists need to dig deeper and deeper then making the appropriate connections.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instead of ontology [illusory] I have to bring in psychology [more realistic] to explain the above.

An antirealist is saying that ontology is illusory. One wonders if he understand that he repeatedly argues in favor of an ontological position.

Saying psychology is more realistic than ontology - apart from being a realist conclusion and an ontological position - is like saying something like your love is sweeter than an orange.

"Ontology" is a very loose term, which is "is" which can be anything to be qualified.

Generally what is taken to be philosophical ontology is this [philosophical realism];

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it.
In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.[1][2] Substances are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to exist all by themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

The category of substances has played a central role in many ontological theories throughout the history of philosophy.[36][37]
"Substance" is a technical term within philosophy not to be confused with the more common usage in the sense of chemical substances like gold or sulfur.
Various definitions have been given but among the most common features ascribed to substances in the philosophical sense is that they are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to exist all by themselves.[36][6]
Being ontologically independent, substances can play the role of fundamental entities in the ontological hierarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

From the above, note 'thing-in-itself,' 'exist all by themselves' and the like, these are all fundamental feature of philosophical realism, i.e. they exist in a state of absolutely mind-independence.

Philosophical Realism ...... is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Iwannaplato]

I am using Chatgpt below with, like, a special kind of proviso and also because I am lazy. Here's what Chatgpt thinks about the silly idea that we can tell what ontological position animals have:

The terms "realist" and "anti-realist" are typically used in the context of philosophy and metaphysics to describe different stances on the nature of reality. These terms are usually applied to human philosophical perspectives rather than to animals.

Realism, in a metaphysical sense, generally holds that there is an objective reality independent of human thought or perception. Anti-realism, on the other hand, can refer to a range of positions that deny the existence of a mind-independent reality or suggest that reality is fundamentally shaped by human perception or conceptual frameworks.

Animals, however, do not engage in philosophical debates or adopt such abstract perspectives. Their understanding of reality is limited by their cognitive capacities and sensory experiences. While some animals might possess impressive cognitive abilities and exhibit behaviors that suggest a certain level of awareness or perception, it's not accurate to attribute philosophical stances like realism or anti-realism to them.

If you're interested in how animals perceive the world, you could study their sensory systems, cognitive abilities, and behaviors. But trying to categorize them as realists or anti-realists ontologically is not a meaningful or applicable endeavor in the context of animal behavior and cognition.

The terms "realists" and "anti-realists" as they pertain to philosophy and metaphysics are not directly applicable to the concept of evolutionary advancement or backwardness. Realism and anti-realism are philosophical stances regarding the nature of reality and the existence of abstract entities, whereas evolutionary advancement refers to the development of traits and characteristics that enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in its environment.

Evolutionary processes do not select for philosophical perspectives. Instead, they shape organisms' physical and behavioral traits based on their adaptability to their surroundings. Traits that provide advantages in terms of survival, reproduction, and adaptation to changing conditions tend to be favored over time. These traits are not related to philosophical beliefs like realism or anti-realism. It is a category error to think in terms of the evolutionary stage of a philosophical position.

It's also important to note that evolution doesn't have a directional goal or endpoint. Organisms can evolve traits that are advantageous for their specific environments at a given time, but these traits might become less advantageous or even maladaptive if the environment changes.

In summary, categorizing organisms as "realists" or "anti-realists" in an evolutionary context is not meaningful, as evolution operates on a different level and does not concern itself with abstract philosophical concepts.