How Physics is Driving Philosophical Realism to Extinction

[Flannel Jesus]

Did that come from some other thread? Oddly everything he said in his OP is less damaging to REC than most realisms. It would have the easiest time adjusting, since it is a kind of perspectivism, has a serious constructivist aspect, and it at the extreme far end away from naive realism.

You're... you're fucking right.

if anything, standard philosophical realism is generally explicitly more against rec than VAs own philosophy regarding all this.

[Flannel Jesus]

And have you, FJ, figured out why radical embodied cognition is being used as Realism? I do think it is a realist theory, to the extent that it does presume there is something independent.

It can be viewed as A realist theory, sure. The only reason it's being discussed as if it's synonymous with philosophical realism is, of course, to create a straw man of sorts. There's no reason why a Philosophical Realist must take an REC sort of view. Hell, according to VAs definition of philosophical realism, even someone who believes this is a "brain in a vat" type world can be a philosophical realist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"dead theory" is a really funny way to describe a belief shared by most scientists and most philosophers...

I agree 'dead theory' need explanation.
It is a "dead theory" when philosophical realists insist it is absolute and an uncompromising ideology.

Since Physics [QM] has 'buried' the mind-independence existence of things re this OP,

It's also at least a little bit obnoxious that you denied that you were saying qm and realism were incompatible in the moon thread, even though every literate person knew that wasn't the case, and here you are saying it again.

Note too sure of this point.
My point is QM and philosophical realism is not compatible in the moon thread, i.e. a a counter to Einstein's implied claim that the moon exists even no one is looking at it.

Every literate person knew..??
Surely there are a lot of literate person from the anti-philosophical-realist camp who do not agree with the philosophical realists views which is not realistic nor tenable.
As I had stated philosophical realism [common sense] is an evolutionary default that need to be weaned off when deliberating on more refined philosophical issues.

I'm glad that you finally have come to say explicitly that your conclusions are not just what's required by raw quantum mechanics, but by your philosophy on realism and FSKs instead. That's all I wanted.
Thank you.

That has been my point from the OP.

So in one thread, you claim it was your point that qm doesn't require these conclusions, gaslighting me about what your point was from the beginning, and yet here you are in another thread once again saying qm requires this.

Qm hasn't buried philosophical realism, your personal philosophy on FSKs, and how you view qm through that lens, has buried philosophical realism for you. That's the correct way to say it.

Not too sure of your points above since you did not reference my specific statements.

My point is;
When I state QM has buried Philosophical Realism, obviously it is from my view and also from the anti-philosophical-realism view.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And have you, FJ, figured out why radical embodied cognition is being used as Realism? I do think it is a realist theory, to the extent that it does presume there is something independent.

It can be viewed as A realist theory, sure. The only reason it's being discussed as if it's synonymous with philosophical realism is, of course, to create a straw man of sorts. There's no reason why a Philosophical Realist must take an REC sort of view. Hell, according to VAs definition of philosophical realism, even someone who believes this is a "brain in a vat" type world can be a philosophical realist.

Yes, if the person hold the view that reality is mind-independent.
In the "brain in a vat" case, the philosophical realist will insist the one [alien-X] who create the 'brain in vat' is living in a mind-independent world.

Anyone who hold that reality is mind-independent, he is a philosophical realist, that is the standard definition.
Note;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Show me if you think otherwise.

[Flannel Jesus]

Right, so qm hasn't buried it, your view of qm has buried it for you. Glad we agree there.

[Iwannaplato]

And have you, FJ, figured out why radical embodied cognition is being used as Realism? I do think it is a realist theory, to the extent that it does presume there is something independent.

It can be viewed as A realist theory, sure. The only reason it's being discussed as if it's synonymous with philosophical realism is, of course, to create a straw man of sorts. There's no reason why a Philosophical Realist must take an REC sort of view. Hell, according to VAs definition of philosophical realism, even someone who believes this is a "brain in a vat" type world can be a philosophical realist.

But the weird thing for me is that it's a bad strawman. Regular old everyday realism is more opposed to his arguments than REC. It's bizarre. REC is epistemologically very skeptical about what a cup is. It is saying things like a cup would look very very different to a moose who has a very different sensory and cognitive system, and they are both mammals. It is a step towards antirealism. And if it is radical, then it is many steps towards anti-realism.

In fact some CE's are likely idealists or antirealists - it can act like a gateway drug ...
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy200 ... 0c7cacdabc

In a certain (weak or strong) sense it can be said that some of those engaged in embodied cognition are anti-realists or even idealists (of some other appropriate metaphysical ist). Indeed many also uphold the self-description “constructivists”.

And then one wonders why 'radical' embodied cognition?

Now one could say that his point is that even REC is denied by qm. But he never says this. Never explains the choice.

And seems to forget it, since he never takes up any of the unique features of EC, let alone, REC, and simply says X refutes realism in general.

And then there's an irony: mirror neuron theory is an EC theory....

The mirror neuron theory has been immensely influential both as the most complete instantiation
of an embodied cognition theory in one particular domain, action understanding, and as the
foundation for embodied cognition theories in many other domains, such as language and social
cognition.

IOW the core of his objective moral theory is part of EC. Why is he attacking it, then?

Why not just attack realism in general?

[Flannel Jesus]

Here's a fun question: is "there are no objective mind independent facts" an objective mind independent fact? Would it still be true objectively even if no mind was aware of it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Right, so qm hasn't buried it, your view of qm has buried it for you. Glad we agree there.

I did not agree to the above.

For me as an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] QM has buried the kindergartenish Philosophical Realism.

You may think otherwise, but I have not agree with you on that.
In this case, I have not agree to disagree.

Overall, if humanity do not wean off from philosophical realism on the more refined issues, humanity will be hindered from expeditious progress, great sufferings will persist and there is a likely chance the human species could be exterminated by certain philosophical realists of the theistic kind, i.e. the extreme fundamentalist Muslims.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm glad that you finally have come to say explicitly that your conclusions are not just what's required by raw quantum mechanics, but by your philosophy on realism and FSKs instead. That's all I wanted.

Thank you.

That has been my point from the OP.

And yet here you are in another thread admitting that qm doesn't require these anti realism conclusions you make.

You agreed to it then, you agreed to it so vehemently that you apparently willed yourself to forget how you argued for weeks prior.

(Bottom of page 22 on the moon thread if anyone is curious)

[Flannel Jesus]

Overall, if humanity do not wean off from philosophical realism on the more refined issues, humanity will be hindered from expeditious progress, great sufferings will persist and there is a likely chance the human species could be exterminated by certain philosophical realists of the theistic kind, i.e. the extreme fundamentalist Muslims.

Maybe you should focus on this. Make a thread about this - not about whether philosophical realism is TRUE or not, not about what qm says about philosophical realism according to your philosophy, but just about what you think the consequences of philosophical realism are and why. You've mentioned this idea that philosophical realism is dangerous or holding us back, but I've never seen you actually support that idea in its own right.

You think philosophical realism will result in great suffering - why, and why will anti realism help us avoid that suffering? I look forward to this thread

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm glad that you finally have come to say explicitly that your conclusions are not just what's required by raw quantum mechanics, but by your philosophy on realism and FSKs instead. That's all I wanted.

Thank you.

That has been my point from the OP.

And yet here you are in another thread admitting that qm doesn't require these anti realism conclusions you make.

You agreed to it then, you agreed to it so vehemently that you apparently willed yourself to forget how you argued for weeks prior.

(Bottom of page 22 on the moon thread if anyone is curious)

It would be easier if you can produce the specific statements and the links, so I can explain or correct it if necessary.
I don't want to present a confusing statement and I don't think I have.
It is likely you may have misunderstood my point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Overall, if humanity do not wean off from philosophical realism on the more refined issues, humanity will be hindered from expeditious progress, great sufferings will persist and there is a likely chance the human species could be exterminated by certain philosophical realists of the theistic kind, i.e. the extreme fundamentalist Muslims.

Maybe you should focus on this. Make a thread about this - not about whether philosophical realism is TRUE or not, not about what qm says about philosophical realism according to your philosophy, but just about what you think the consequences of philosophical realism are and why. You've mentioned this idea that philosophical realism is dangerous or holding us back, but I've never seen you actually support that idea in its own right.

You think philosophical realism will result in great suffering - why, and why will anti realism help us avoid that suffering? I look forward to this thread

I have written about it directly and indirectly somewhere.
I often mentioned 'envision' in relation to this point of progress.
Will try to find it, if not I will raise a new thread.

The point is there is so much resistant and mockery of my views that there is no way I could progress further.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's the problem, as I see it.

The people whom VA fears (on humanity's behalf) are theistic moral objectivists. And I agree that the crazy dominionists among them - Christian, Muslim or whatever - are to be feared and defeated,

'My team's god, alone of the thousands our ancestors invented, is real, we know what it wants, and what it wants is good.' How much human suffering has been the result of this delusion? (The good doesn't cancel that out.)

But instead of recognising that moral objectivism is the root of the trouble, VA proposes an alternative, equally spurious, moral objectivism: 'Your moral opinions are subjective, but here are the moral facts.'

I'd guess I - and maybe many of us - agree with many of VA's moral opinions. But that isn't the point. Moral objectivism is moral egotism in action. I've never come across a moral objectivist who doesn't think her own moral opinions are facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's the problem, as I see it.

The people whom VA fears (on humanity's behalf) are theistic moral objectivists. And I agree that the crazy dominionists among them - Christian, Muslim or whatever - are to be feared and defeated,

'My team's god, alone of the thousands our ancestors invented, is real, we know what it wants, and what it wants is good.' How much human suffering has been the result of this delusion? (The good doesn't cancel that out.)

But instead of recognising that moral objectivism is the root of the trouble, VA proposes an alternative, equally spurious, moral objectivism: 'Your moral opinions are subjective, but here are the moral facts.'

I'd guess I - and maybe many of us - agree with many of VA's moral opinions. But that isn't the point. Moral objectivism is moral egotism in action. I've never come across a moral objectivist who doesn't think her own moral opinions are facts.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

Note my principles;
1. All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
2. A human-based FSK based on collective consensus is objective, i.e. independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgments.
3. Because a FSK is human-based, its objective is subject to a range of degrees.
4. The degrees of objectivity of a FSK is dependent on its credibility and reliability.
5. AT PRESENT, the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable as the standard where all other FSKs are evaluated against.

I've never come across a moral objectivist who doesn't think her own moral opinions are facts.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

The morality of the Abrahamic religions are based on a theistic moral FSK.
Nevertheless, it is an objective moral FSK with objective moral facts. [1-3 above]
But the theistic moral FSK is grounded on faith on an illusory God.
In contrast to the empirically based scientific FSK as the standard of objectivity at 100/100, the credibility, reliability and Objectivity of the theistic moral FSK would be rated at 0.001/100 degree of objectivity.

I had argued, the human-based moral FSK I proposed is heavily grounded and leveraged on human-based scientific facts, so, has a near equivalent credibility, reliability and objectivity to the scientific FSK.
In my case, there are objective moral facts that are credible, reliable and highly objective, thus Morality is Objective in that sense.

Note,
your 'what is fact' ideology based on "a fact is a feature of reality which is just-is" is illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and non-sensical.
Your basis of "what is fact" is groundless to refute my version of human-based-FSK-facts.

But instead of recognising that moral objectivism is the root of the trouble, VA proposes an alternative, equally spurious, moral objectivism: 'Your moral opinions are subjective, but here are the moral facts.'

You are so ignorant!

Whilst the theistic moral FSK has very low objectivity, they have contributed tremendously to the progress of humanity optimally against the time-relative constraints they faced; there is also no denial that they have contributed much sufferings to humanity.

One cannot deny Christianity's overriding pacifist moral maxim, e.g. 'thou shall not kill' 'love all including enemies' 'give your left cheek' had significantly restraint the majority of Christians from killing other humans.
If any Christian had killed other humans, that has nothing to do with the Christianity-Moral-FSK, but rather those 'Christians' were acting on their own personal drives.

The Islamist claimed to have moral elements, but that is applicable only to Muslims, not to humanity; in Islam, there is no moral considerations for non-Muslims.

[popeye1945]

Our inescapable subjectivity should give us reason to question the validity of what we call apparent reality, or our everyday reality. In our subjectivity, Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the physical world, read apparent reality/everyday reality. Spinoza lived in the seventeenth century and believed reality was appearance. He pointed out that the physical world as object or objects was known to us through those objects altering our biological senses and thus, we come to know what has affected us. Today science tells us all is energy, all is vibrations and frequencies, we learn that there is no sound or color in the physical world, it is the vibrations in the air affecting our eardrums or vibrations affecting the sensors in the eye which give us the illusion of color but this is biological effect, thus biological readout presenting us with apparent reality. If this is true, and it is, why not expand on this idea and say that all is vibrations and that objects are of the same nature as sound and color, the same principle. So, the physical world of energies that surround us are playing us like an instrument, and the melody it plays upon us is apparent reality. It is a melody that only reactive organisms hear humanity included. So, we know through the experience of being altered and this is knowledge and meaning to us, we've come to know the world around us. Objects have meanings by how they affect us, and we project those meanings or bestow them upon an otherwise meaningless world.

Many animals/reactive organisms have differing sensory apparatus and thus live in a somewhat different apparent reality, their structures and forms fitting them to their respective niches. I think we must come to a general understanding, that everything about life is governed by its reactive nature, this is the first principle of life in relation to the earth as cause of all reactionary life forms. I would like to expand upon this, perhaps after I get some reactions----lol!!