PH, Is Your Philosophy-of Mind-Independence, Mind-Independent?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah but VA seems to think that all realists are naive realists,

Yes, yes. I wasn't directly reponding to you. I was just mulling the issues. Seeing if we could get away from some of the words that are being abused. New words can be abused also, but at least in new ways and requiring a little creativity to undermine them also.

who believe that they directly perceive the objects out there as they really are. As such, realists cannot believe in the causal chains of perception.

If this sounds completely insane even from VA, that's because it is..

My first reaction, now directly responding, is that VA isn't consistant. But otherwise, yes, I think he is reacting to naive realism/direct realism.

(repeat]
Naive realism is that of the common sense or 'vulgar' kind.
In a philosophical forum, it would be stupid of me to claim all philosophical realists are naive realists.

Most posters here are philosophical realists of either/and metaphysical realism, indirect realism, scientific realism [philosophical], and the like.

[Atla]

My growing suspicion is that VA has never ever considered the kind of realism you are talking about, because it is based on indirect perception. Maybe he's not even capable of considering it.

To VA, realism = naive realism (and maybe some close variants of naive realism). He cannot conceive of said relationship, because a relationship is between two things and VA only sees one.

I mean he may be right when he sees PH as some kind of naive realist, but that's about it.

Strawman.
I have never claimed PH is a direct or naive realist.
PH is a philosophical realist of the metaphysical realism and indirect realism kind.

Well let's see if you know what you're talking about, now that indirect perception is on the table.

Prove that reality isn't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My growing suspicion is that VA has never ever considered the kind of realism you are talking about, because it is based on indirect perception. Maybe he's not even capable of considering it.

To VA, realism = naive realism (and maybe some close variants of naive realism). He cannot conceive of said relationship, because a relationship is between two things and VA only sees one.

I mean he may be right when he sees PH as some kind of naive realist, but that's about it.

Strawman.
I have never claimed PH is a direct or naive realist.
PH is a philosophical realist of the metaphysical realism and indirect realism kind.

Well let's see if you know what you're talking about, now that indirect perception is on the table.

Prove that reality isn't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Direct perception is irrelevant to the issue here.


With reference to the above, the Empirical Realist acknowledge the candle is in one sense independent or mind-independent from the observer; this is the relative sense of mind-independence because empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [ mind related].

Philosophical Realism insist the 'candle' is absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions of the observers.
In one perspective, the candle above cannot be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions because candles are created by humans.

To avoid the above, we replace the "candle" with the "moon", philosophical realists will insist the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even after humans are extinct.
Now, show me how the moon can exists absolutely mind-independent???

[Atla]

Strawman.
I have never claimed PH is a direct or naive realist.
PH is a philosophical realist of the metaphysical realism and indirect realism kind.

Well let's see if you know what you're talking about, now that indirect perception is on the table.

Prove that reality isn't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Direct perception is irrelevant to the issue here.


With reference to the above, the Empirical Realist acknowledge the candle is in one sense independent or mind-independent from the observer; this is the relative sense of mind-independence because empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [ mind related].

Philosophical Realism insist the 'candle' is absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions of the observers.
In one perspective, the candle above cannot be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions because candles are created by humans.

To avoid the above, we replace the "candle" with the "moon", philosophical realists will insist the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even after humans are extinct.
Now, show me how the moon can exists absolutely mind-independent???

But you didn't write anything that would show that the Moon can't be 'absolutely' mind-independent.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Skepdick]

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

How? All proofs are mind games.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well let's see if you know what you're talking about, now that indirect perception is on the table.

Prove that reality isn't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Direct perception is irrelevant to the issue here.


With reference to the above, the Empirical Realist acknowledge the candle is in one sense independent or mind-independent from the observer; this is the relative sense of mind-independence because empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [ mind related].

Philosophical Realism insist the 'candle' is absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions of the observers.
In one perspective, the candle above cannot be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions because candles are created by humans.

To avoid the above, we replace the "candle" with the "moon", philosophical realists will insist the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even after humans are extinct.
Now, show me how the moon can exists absolutely mind-independent???

But you didn't write anything that would show that the Moon can't be 'absolutely' mind-independent.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not assume a positive moon [noumenon] out there independent of the mind awaiting to be perceived.
For ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, the moon emerged and is realized within the human conditions.
Because human conditions include mind, brain and body, the moon that emerged and is realized then only perceived, known and described CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

I have linked this a '1000' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but you cannot get it because you are stuck with an evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

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

I have explained why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent many times but you cannot get it.

[Atla]

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not assume a positive moon [noumenon] out there independent of the mind awaiting to be perceived.
For ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, the moon emerged and is realized within the human conditions.
Because human conditions include mind, brain and body, the moon that emerged and is realized then only perceived, known and described CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

I have linked this a '1000' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but you cannot get it because you are stuck with an evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

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

I have explained why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent many times but you cannot get it.

You have just re-stated your principle for the 1000th time, a principle isn't a proof, not even for the 1000th time.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not assume a positive moon [noumenon] out there independent of the mind awaiting to be perceived.
For ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, the moon emerged and is realized within the human conditions.
Because human conditions include mind, brain and body, the moon that emerged and is realized then only perceived, known and described CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

I have linked this a '1000' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but you cannot get it because you are stuck with an evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

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

I have explained why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent many times but you cannot get it.

You have just re-stated your principle for the 1000th time, a principle isn't a proof, not even for the 1000th time.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

see:
viewtopic.php?p=660240#p660240

[Atla]

see:
viewtopic.php?p=660240#p660240

replied there

[popeye1945]

Naive realism means things are just as they appear to be.

[Age]

Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

In what way has science refuted direct perception? It seems like the brain can directly perceive electrical signals, so in that sense a brain can directly perceive electrons, and the mind therefore directly perceives electricity. It also seems like neurons can directly perceive neurotransmitters and therefore the mind can perceive these in various forms such as a full signal from the stomach..

What is the 'mind', EXACTLY?

[Atla]

Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

In what way has science refuted direct perception? It seems like the brain can directly perceive electrical signals, so in that sense a brain can directly perceive electrons, and the mind therefore directly perceives electricity. It also seems like neurons can directly perceive neurotransmitters and therefore the mind can perceive these in various forms such as a full signal from the stomach..

?! Let's take vision for example, what do you mean by the brain directly receiving electrical signals?

[rootseeker]

Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

In what way has science refuted direct perception? It seems like the brain can directly perceive electrical signals, so in that sense a brain can directly perceive electrons, and the mind therefore directly perceives electricity. It also seems like neurons can directly perceive neurotransmitters and therefore the mind can perceive these in various forms such as a full signal from the stomach..

?! Let's take vision for example, what do you mean by the brain directly receiving electrical signals?

I'm not sure that vision is a direct form of perception of electrical signals. The retina transforms light to electricity that is then received by neurons. However, poking a wire in a brain and sending an electric current through would be a direct perception of electricity such as being done by Tesla Neuralink. With training the electric current becomes a consciously noticed process.

[Atla]

In what way has science refuted direct perception? It seems like the brain can directly perceive electrical signals, so in that sense a brain can directly perceive electrons, and the mind therefore directly perceives electricity. It also seems like neurons can directly perceive neurotransmitters and therefore the mind can perceive these in various forms such as a full signal from the stomach..

?! Let's take vision for example, what do you mean by the brain directly receiving electrical signals?

I'm not sure that vision is a direct form of perception of electrical signals. The retina transforms light to electricity that is then received by neurons. However, poking a wire in a brain and sending an electric current through would be a direct perception of electricity such as being done by Tesla Neuralink. With training the electric current becomes a consciously noticed process.

I think those electrical signals would be presented to the brain after some machine processed some imagery in some way and then transformed that into those electrical signals. Overall still not direct perception.

[Skepdick]

In what way has science refuted direct perception? It seems like the brain can directly perceive electrical signals, so in that sense a brain can directly perceive electrons, and the mind therefore directly perceives electricity. It also seems like neurons can directly perceive neurotransmitters and therefore the mind can perceive these in various forms such as a full signal from the stomach..

This is a peculiar use of "perceive".

Notice how you are antthropomorphising your brain in saying "your brain perceives" not "you perceive" electrical signals. That's quite a sleight of hand...

Why does some of the electricy (that your brain perceives) taste like apple; other electricity registers as hunger while other electricity hurts?

It seems you've confused the carrier for the content of the message.