Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant says it is a scandal not to be able to give a proof of the existence of external objects

Then Kant was clinging to certainty where there can't be certainty. That just means that Kant was mentally weak.

In fact, there is even less certainty than that. Even all the appearances could be illusions. Deceived by an evil demon, or by a little green alien who runs this computer simulation, etc. I never really understood why someone would worry so much about the uncertainty of the noumenon, when the phenomena are also ultimately uncertain.

The point is the phenomena which can never be absolutely certain is grounded upon real experiences which can be verified via the scientific FSK to ensure it is not an illusion.

Whereas the noumenon is an intelligible thought hypothesized from that uncertain experienced phenomena.
The unverifiable uncertain noumenon is grounded on uncertainty of the phenomenon.
As such the noumenon is subject to double uncertainty.

The problem is when p-realists insist the unverifiable noumenon is more real than the uncertain phenomenon which it is grounded upon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then Kant was clinging to certainty where there can't be certainty. That just means that Kant was mentally weak.

In fact, there is even less certainty than that. Even all the appearances could be illusions. Deceived by an evil demon, or by a little green alien who runs this computer simulation, etc. I never really understood why someone would worry so much about the uncertainty of the noumenon, when the phenomena are also ultimately uncertain.

I've been wondering, yes, if there is also a vulnerability to a regress in the antirealist position. For example, we have to rely on memory of perceptions. But this memory of perceptions is now treating the original perception as a noumenon. My memory of what I just saw is true and about something that was real (the original perception). Why is that allowed?

There is no original perception about something [pre-existed] that was real.
Thus Kant's Copernican Revolution that counter this delusion.

Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

The point is what is real emerged and is realized within the human conditions originally [at say t1] then it only subsequently [at t2] become appearance, is perceived, observed, known, described and memorized.

Then this whole shebang of what is real is then intellectualized and hypothesized as a noumenon, i.e. an intelligible thought, then adopted as a dogmatic ideology by the p-realist.

[Atla]

The point is the phenomena which can never be absolutely certain is grounded upon real experiences which can be verified via the scientific FSK to ensure it is not an illusion.

This is already such a confused word salad that I don't even know how to address it. The phenomena are the "real experiences" so they can't be grounded upon them. There's no scientific way yet to verify the "real experiences" in the head. And some "real experiences" include hallucinations and God then.

Otherwise you are saying that experiences are noumena, which is a nonsensical duality for phenomena vs experiences, plus you said there are no noumena so there are no experiences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is the phenomena which can never be absolutely certain is grounded upon real experiences which can be verified via the scientific FSK to ensure it is not an illusion.

This is already such a confused word salad that I don't even know how to address it. The phenomena are the "real experiences" so they can't be grounded upon them. There's no scientific way yet to verify the "real experiences" in the head. And some "real experiences" include hallucinations and God then.

Otherwise you are saying that experiences are noumena, which is a nonsensical duality for phenomena vs experiences, plus you said there are no noumena so there are no experiences.

Word Salad?? that is because you are ignorant of what is reality and is banking on illusions.

I am arguing there are two senses of what is reality;

Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
i.e.
1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

The "philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality" [2] believes there are mind-independent phenomena which is regarded as positive noumena.
In this sense, the phenomena are external mind-independent things that are experienced [in the head] by the experiencers.
I have proven philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion and thus your view based on philosophical realism is illusory, i.e. not realistic.

On the other hand, the human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality is accounted for by the following;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
In this case, what are phenomena are already experienced in the emergence and realization phase before it is perceived as an appearance, known and described.
The phenomena are subsequently thought by the intellect as noumena but only as a negative noumena for effective practical uses.

Repeat, I have never asserted there are no noumena; there are noumena but only in the negative sense.

[Atla]

He thinks I'm a realist on the issue, after being told the opposite every single time. I'll treat it as a fact from now on that he has a serious learning disability and also lacks basic comprehension skills. Maybe parts of his brain aren't working. That would also explain why he got Kant so wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone who insist the noumenon exists as a positive noumenon that is really real is by default a philosophical realist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Metaphysical realism maintains that "whatever {the positive noumena} exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced."[10] In other words, an objective reality exists (not merely one or more subjective realities). -ibid

Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be. -ibid

i.e.
Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the {positive noumenal} world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.

[Atla]

One cannot "insist" on the unknowable ffs. Though it's understandable now that having a learning disability and almost no comprehension skills, VA wouldn't grasp what noumenon means.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Those who are relying on merely handwaving without arguments and justifications are exposing their low intelligence and insulting their intelligence. Any small kid can do that.

I believe re the related discussions, I am the one who initiated the term 'noumenon' within the Kantian context and as such any counter should be confined to that context.

It is claimed that
"Schopenhauer criticised Kant for changing the meaning of "noumenon". However, this opinion is far from unanimous."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon# ... -in-itself
There is hardly any philosophers who had given much attention to Schopenhauer's view which not much different from the theists' claim God exists.

As such, the discussion of the noumenon in context should be the one introduced by Kant.

Whilst Kant did mention the noumenon is unknowable, he did not mean absolutely unknowable.
What is critical to Kant is, ultimately the noumenon and as the thing-in-itself is an illusion and can only be used in the negative sense for certain useful purposes.

To insist the noumenon and thing-in-itself is absolutely unknowable and as a real positively is stupid and psychologically desperate.
It is the same excuse theists use to claim their God is unknowable but regardless exists as real.

To try to give a different take on what is noumenon away from Kant's [to topic] we should fall back on its etymology;

• The Greek word νοούμενoν, nooúmenon (plural νοούμενα, nooúmena) is the neuter middle-passive present participle of νοεῖν, noeîn, 'to think, to mean', which in turn originates from the word νοῦς, noûs, an Attic contracted form of νόος, nóos, 'perception, understanding, mind'.[a][4][5]
  A rough equivalent in English would be "something that is thought", or "the object of an act of thought".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#Etymology

Etymology, the noumenon refer to a thought object rather than something that should be real.

real = actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. [google dictionary]

[Atla]

Unknowable (not absolutely unknowable even) and "can't be real" are mutually exclusive.

[Iwannaplato]

Those who are relying on merely handwaving without arguments and justifications are exposing their low intelligence and insulting their intelligence. Any small kid can do that.

The people who respond to you - most people at PN are not interested - all have serious questions about your logic and reasoning and all of them have taken pains to post arguments, often taking a number of angles, and this includes Atla. Often many different arguments, many different angles, all trying to frame these responses in some way that might get you to reflect at least.

It seems beyond your ablity to reflect and imagine that your arguments might have any problems at all. That your semantics might have any problems at all.

Yes, people at times stop wasting time with longer analytical responses to you. I mean, if you are going to ignore critique from a wide range of posters who have a wide range of philosophical opinions...regardless, why not on occasion just be pithy.

Also, I am not sure you realize how many of your posts are clumps of assertions. Yes, you can manage to do deductive work, but again, let's remember how many different people have pointed out your problems with deduction.

Have you ever mulled over the fact that the only person who has decided to back up your positions here is Skepdick. And note: positions. He argues for them quite differently than you do. And he's called you the stupidest person here.

I am sure you will assert that if someone gave a convincing rational argument you would change your mind, but it doesn't seem to give you the slightest pause that no one is backing up your arguments, even the people who have reached similar conclusions about some things.

Ultimately this is your loss.

For a pithier version of the above...
viewtopic.php?p=657471#p657471

[Iwannaplato]

Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy

How so?
How is it a scandal or insult to philosophy?
In philosophy, philosophers manage to discuss the issue repectfully and so far not conclusively. You can seem a partial summary of this in the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on realism.
I understand that you disagree with realism, but why is the disagreement around this issue a scandal.
Can't people have differing opinions?
What is so emotional about this issue for you?

[Atla]

Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy

How so?
How is it a scandal or insult to philosophy?
In philosophy, philosophers manage to discuss the issue repectfully and so far not conclusively. You can seem a partial summary of this in the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on realism.
I understand that you disagree with realism, but why is the disagreement around this issue a scandal.
Can't people have differing opinions?
What is so emotional about this issue for you?

He even got the scandal wrong I think. The quote in the OP says that we must accept the existence of things outside us on faith - which is true. But VA says in the OP that the scandal is that everything is independent of us - ???

Anyway, there's no scandal / the scandal is unresolvable. Uncertainty, some faith is inherent to all philosophy, it's just the way it is, the fault is with those who can't accept this.

And in the next quote, Kant says the existence of noumenal objects is far from certain, which VA equates with can't exist/can't be real.

Lies.. I'm no Kant fanboy but imo even I'm a better Kantian than VA is

[Iwannaplato]

He even got the scandal wrong I think. The quote in the OP says that we must accept the existence of things outside us on faith - which is true. But VA says in the OP that the scandal is that everything is independent of us - ???

Yeah, 'independent', is being being used hilariously.

Anyway, there's no scandal / the scandal is unresolvable. Uncertainty, some faith is inherent to all philosophy, it's just the way it is, the fault is with those who can't accept this.

VA has a great deal of faith in his ability to determine and declare things. Treating animals as ends and not just as means it outside morality. It is a scandal that realists believe..... There is one moral FSK. This is objective. X has destroyed realism. I have proven Y. Finding Z in qm means proves A. And so on. That he has strong opinions is one thing, but he'll happily tell people what morality-proper is. Not just what he thinks is moral.

And in the next quote, Kant says the existence of noumenal objects is far from certain, which VA equates with can't exist/can't be real.

An Van Frassen remains agnostic and would also be very critical of the various FSKs that VA uses to back up realist conclusions when he needs those.

Lies.. I'm no Kant fanboy but imo even I'm a better Kantian than VA is

I've been wondering about the distinction between what is perceived and what is remembered as perceived and how this fits in with the noumena/phenomena distinction in Kant (or in general). Kant it seems to me is more of an epistemological antirealist whereas VA is an ontological/metaphysical antirealist. So, Kant is saying we can really only know phenomena not whatever may or may not have instigated phenomena in our senses. Fine. It seems epistemologically cautious....or? I mean, really when trying to figure things out, we only have memories of phenomena, or the moments transitory perceiving and these memories. When we wax philosophical we are generally 'looking at' memories of phenomena. To me this is another layer, just as we have another layer when distinguishing noumena and phenomena. I don't think the perception we are having at this precise moment is some thing, It's shifting half gone already with interpretations and guesses built in. And then we have these memories. It seems to memories of prior phenomena are like phenomena and the prior phenomena are like the noumena to these memories. They should be ruled out also.

But you can't generate a philosophy or conclusions when only allowed to focus on precisely what is happening this second. By the time your pen hits the page, all you have is a memory (phenomena) of the phenomena (now a noumenon).

[Atla]

I've been wondering about the distinction between what is perceived and what is remembered as perceived and how this fits in with the noumena/phenomena distinction in Kant (or in general). Kant it seems to me is more of an epistemological antirealist whereas VA is an ontological/metaphysical antirealist. So, Kant is saying we can really only know phenomena not whatever may or may not have instigated phenomena in our senses. Fine. It seems epistemologically cautious....or? I mean, really when trying to figure things out, we only have memories of phenomena, or the moments transitory perceiving and these memories. When we wax philosophical we are generally 'looking at' memories of phenomena. To me this is another layer, just as we have another layer when distinguishing noumena and phenomena. I don't think the perception we are having at this precise moment is some thing, It's shifting half gone already with interpretations and guesses built in. And then we have these memories. It seems to memories of prior phenomena are like phenomena and the prior phenomena are like the noumena to these memories. They should be ruled out also.

But you can't generate a philosophy or conclusions when only allowed to focus on precisely what is happening this second. By the time your pen hits the page, all you have is a memory (phenomena) of the phenomena (now a noumenon).

Yeah and I think even the idea of "this second", "this moment" is based on the sensation of the passage of time. And to even have this sensation in the first place, we need memories, which are partially using noumena, the succession of the memories creates the sensation of the passage of time. A strict no-noumena approach just can't even make sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to have three categories: phenomena, noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method, and other noumena. Things in this last category could then be seen as illusory / non-existent unless shown otherwise.

(And once all the confusion is cleared up, Western philosophy could finally grow up and proceed to nondualism where all categories are probably parts of one and the same reality, and of one and the same nature.)

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah and I think even the idea of "this second", "this moment" is based on the sensation of the passage of time. And to even have this sensation in the first place, we need memories, which are partially using noumena, the succession of the memories creates the sensation of the passage of time. A strict no-noumena approach just can't even make sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to have three categories: phenomena, noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method, and other noumena. Things in this last category could then be seen as illusory / non-existent unless shown otherwise.

(And once all the confusion is cleared up, Western philosophy could finally grow up and proceed to nondualism where all categories are probably parts of one and the same reality, and of one and the same nature.)

I also agree with your prior post that there are elements of faith regardless. Believing that you don't assume anything and don't use intuition and it's all just some pure deductive analytical process based on pure empiricism....well, that's just not really looking at everything your're doing.