Not Mind-Independent not = Mind-Dependent

[Iwannaplato]

and there are many other threads I have raised to support the above points.

Yes. I am not criticizing or disagreeing. I am trying to see how you conceive of reality. The realists have a kind of ongoing, external universe which we are a part of. They could make a big map of the universe (a portion of it) and Have the Milky way here then a close up our Sun here then the earth. And in their model all this is always (in this period of time) present, even if no one is looking at a portion of the universe. That's a very simplified presentation of their model and I'm sure this is not news to you. They would see us walking around on the surface of the earth (all of that surface existing, even if no one is looking at it). So, we are moving around and perceiving an already present in all directions reality that is all around us. Everything is moving in this model and always present. And we humans are in a specific portion of the universe on the earth. An earth where all the parts of the planet are always present, regardless of whether there is a sentient being perceiving that portion at a given time.

What is the model of reality as you understand it coming from your non-realism?
An overview.
Not specifics like 'The Moon is not there when no one is looking at it'

But a general model of reality from the persepective of your non-realism.

I realize this is a hard question and I am not sure as a non-realist what my answer would be. I do not expect some hard and fast answer that you feel you must prove is the case.

But as an exploration, how would one describe an overview of reality from your non-realist perspective. One that is a counterpart to my quick overview from a realist perspective above.

[Atla]

I have already stated many times I adopts Empirical Realism [mind-independence] which is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [not mind-independent].

Your thinking is shallow. The correct view is: just as empirical realism is subsumed in transcendental idealism, transcendental idealism is also subsumed in empirical realism.

The world is "in" us and we are "in" the world at the same time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

and there are many other threads I have raised to support the above points.

Yes. I am not criticizing or disagreeing. I am trying to see how you conceive of reality. The realists have a kind of ongoing, external universe which we are a part of. They could make a big map of the universe (a portion of it) and Have the Milky way here then a close up our Sun here then the earth. And in their model all this is always (in this period of time) present, even if no one is looking at a portion of the universe. That's a very simplified presentation of their model and I'm sure this is not news to you. They would see us walking around on the surface of the earth (all of that surface existing, even if no one is looking at it). So, we are moving around and perceiving an already present in all directions reality that is all around us. Everything is moving in this model and always present. And we humans are in a specific portion of the universe on the earth. An earth where all the parts of the planet are always present, regardless of whether there is a sentient being perceiving that portion at a given time.

What is the model of reality as you understand it coming from your non-realism?
An overview.
Not specifics like 'The Moon is not there when no one is looking at it'

But a general model of reality from the persepective of your non-realism.

I realize this is a hard question and I am not sure as a non-realist what my answer would be. I do not expect some hard and fast answer that you feel you must prove is the case.

But as an exploration, how would one describe an overview of reality from your non-realist perspective. One that is a counterpart to my quick overview from a realist perspective above.

You missed this critical point I wrote, here again,

• I have already stated many times I adopts Empirical Realism [mind-independence] which is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [not mind-independent].
  
  Within Empirical Realism, what is empirical [the apple out there] is independent of my mind.
  Empirical Realism avoids solipsism, i.e. there are other empirical minds.
  With reference to empirical realism, the Big Bang, the moon, the universes did exist prior to human existence.
  
  But empirical realism in another higher perspective is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism which is NOT mind-independent.
  The point is the hypothesis->theory of "Big Bang, the moon, the universes did exist prior to human existence" is conditioned within the human conditions.
  To enable the emergence and realization of the above, the variable of empirical time, space are inevitably involved. Since time and space do not exist absolutely but are not-mind-independent, whatever the conclusions of the Big Bang cannot be mind-independent.

As such I am a realist in one sense and non-realist in another.
To be very precise,
I am an Empirical realist in one sense and non-realist [Transcendental Idealist] in another.

The difference is I am NOT dogmatic to the mind-independence of empirical realism but my ultimate stance is NOT mind-independence where my Transcendental Idealism overrides.

Philosophical Realists insist theirs is the ONLY WAY or the highway, just like what the theists claiming; after all both philosophical realists and theists' thinking are grounded on the same absolute mind-independence.

[Iwannaplato]

As such I am a realist in one sense and non-realist in another.

I got that. But in an ultimate sense your fundamental ontological position is that things do not exist when we are not there to see them. There is no unperceived set of things.

So what is that reality like.

What is the parallel model to the realist overview but from the non-realist perspective.

[Atla]

Yeah I'd like to finally see the answer to that one too. What DOES ontologically exist according to your transcendental idealism?

[Skepdick]

Yeah I'd like to finally see the answer to that one too. What DOES ontologically exist according to your transcendental idealism?

Rinse. Repeat.

Given that "ontology" and "existence" are interchangeable terms what the hell are you even asking when you turn your nouns into verbs ?!?

What exists existentially?
What ontologised ontologically?

[Atla]

Yeah I'd like to finally see the answer to that one too. What DOES ontologically exist according to your transcendental idealism?

Rinse. Repeat.

Given that "ontology" and "existence" are interchangeable terms what the hell are you even asking when you turn your nouns into verbs ?!?

What exists existentially?
What ontologised ontologically?

Word salad

[Skepdick]

Yeah I'd like to finally see the answer to that one too. What DOES ontologically exist according to your transcendental idealism?

Rinse. Repeat.

Given that "ontology" and "existence" are interchangeable terms what the hell are you even asking when you turn your nouns into verbs ?!?

What exists existentially?
What ontologised ontologically?

Word salad

Exactly! Your question is a word salad!

But if you know that, then why are you even asking it ?!?

What sort of answer do you expect to a word salad question?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such I am a realist in one sense and non-realist in another.

I got that. But in an ultimate sense your fundamental ontological position is that things do not exist when we are not there to see them. There is no unperceived set of things.

So what is that reality like.

What is the parallel model to the realist overview but from the non-realist perspective.

PH: So what is that reality like.

There is no question of things must come from something.
Literally, anti-philosophical_realists don't give a damn to 'what is that reality like".

To do so, would be falling on
philosophical realism which is driven psychologically to pine [cling] for what is ultimate, an absolute mind independent reality.

What an empirical realist focus fully on is what is empirical [emerged and realized and supported by critical and rational thinking], thus his reality [emerged and realized] is reinforced by the various human-based*FSKs of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.
*human-based thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah I'd like to finally see the answer to that one too. What DOES ontologically exist according to your transcendental idealism?

I'm trying to get a handle on the overview. Of course realism is ingrained in most of us so deeply it's hard to twist the mind around it. But it seems like these beacons of consciousness(plus what gets called objects) shifting around. Do they overlap? Like when we both look at the 'same object'? Is it the same object? Can one have an overview, since the very idea of an overview kinda fixes things in place. He has made it clear he is not a solipsist, but the interesting thing is he has also said that objects are not 'the same' when two different people look at them. Like if something is in a room, you see it (a desk), it is not the same object if someone else enters and sees it later.

Fine.

But this creates a very odd universe - which does not mean it is not the case, but man it is odd. When I look at things they are not the things you look at. What happens when I look at you? Of course you can't look at you the same way I can. But presumably I am actually looking at the same you that you experience as yourself. So only when we look at others are we looking at the same 'thing.' This isn't solipsism but it's disturbingly isolated with these moments of overlap when one of us looks at the other or best in eye contact.

And it's all sort of happening in not particular place.

There's something rather Hindic about it.

[Atla]

Rinse. Repeat.

Given that "ontology" and "existence" are interchangeable terms what the hell are you even asking when you turn your nouns into verbs ?!?

What exists existentially?
What ontologised ontologically?

Word salad

Exactly! Your question is a word salad!

But if you know that, then why are you even asking it ?!?

What sort of answer do you expect to a word salad question?

No, you equating ontology and existence was word salad. It's another example of not being able to process meaning/context.

[Skepdick]

No, you equating ontology and existence was word salad. It's another example of not being able to process meaning/context.

I am not equating them. They are equal.

Ontology. Existence. Reality. The universe. Nature. Cosmos. Actuality. Space.time The World. All there is. etc. etc. etc.

Synonyms.

This is a perfect example of me being able to process the semantic equivalence/identity between those terms whereas you can't.

[Atla]

No, you equating ontology and existence was word salad. It's another example of not being able to process meaning/context.

I am not equating them. They are equal.

Ontology. Existence. Reality. The universe. Nature. Cosmos. Actuality. Space.time The World. All there is. etc. etc. etc.

This is a perfect example of me being able to process the semantic equivalence/identity between those terms whereas you can't.

Ontology is the

branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being

not being itself.

[Skepdick]

No, you equating ontology and existence was word salad. It's another example of not being able to process meaning/context.

I am not equating them. They are equal.

Ontology. Existence. Reality. The universe. Nature. Cosmos. Actuality. Space.time The World. All there is. etc. etc. etc.

This is a perfect example of me being able to process the semantic equivalence/identity between those terms whereas you can't.

Ontology is the

branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being

not being itself.

Being, existence and nature are synonymous.

So... ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of nature; a.k.a the being of being; aka the existence of existence.

Sounds like ontology is the branch of metaphysics that has no clue what it's talking about.

[Atla]

I am not equating them. They are equal.

Ontology. Existence. Reality. The universe. Nature. Cosmos. Actuality. Space.time The World. All there is. etc. etc. etc.

This is a perfect example of me being able to process the semantic equivalence/identity between those terms whereas you can't.

Ontology is the

branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being

not being itself.

Being, existence and nature are synonymous.

So... ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of nature; a.k.a the being of being; aka the existence of existence.

Sounds like ontology is the branch of metaphysics that has no clue what it's talking about.

"nature" has at least two different meanings. This is an example of not being able to process meaning/context.

Do you have to make every thread about your brain deficiency?