promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 2:42 pm
"Where did I claim I am a Platonist?"
Perhaps that was unfair, but when u believe consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal emergent property but a necessary feature involved in structuring reality and creating facts about that reality, your position is suspiciously platonic. The stuff about intersubjective beliefs and FSKs on a scale of worse to better stuff. As if whatever is true at the time is only true if an intersubjective group of accurate FSK sharers say it is. That's some OG idealism there, VA. Plato throwbacks. Spooky epistemological panpsychism or sumthin.
When we dig into philosophical issues there are a lot of nuances to consider.
From what is discussed since philosophy first emerged;
there are two main camps;
1. philosophical realists, metaphysical platonic realists, theological realists, naive realists, indirect realists and the likes whose beliefs are leverage on an absolute mind-independent sense of reality. While Berkeley is a subjective idealist, he is ultimately a theological realist, i.e. believing in an absolute mind-independent God.
While you are not a platonic realist, from you have posted, you are most likely a philosophical or metaphysical realist. Can you confirm?
The above mind-independent absolutists are the majority and dominant group as driven by an evolutionary default.
The fact is realism-in-general has loads of weaknesses and problems which cannot represent the truth of reality, i.e. metaphysics, reality-Gap, and at the extreme is responsible for all sorts of evil acts from theological realism.
2. It is the problematic realism in general that give rise to those who oppose the fundamental belief of the above and since they are against those in 1, they are ANTI-realist i.e. ANTI-p-realists just like anti-communism, anti-nazi, anti-fascism and whatever the ANTI- to signify their opposition to 1.
Those in 2 are the minority who are able to override the evolutionary default or by various other reasons.
Those in 2 merely oppose 1 and they have their own beliefs, e.g. the various idealisms, constructivism, scientific-anti_realism, etc. This is just like atheists who are anti-theism but they have their own separate beliefs.
Since realism-in-general is 'unrealistic' and has loads of problem [even evil ones] Kant introduced his transcendental idealism which is more [not absolute] realistic which will facilitate the progress and well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
It is undeniable that the reality you are in at present is an emergent and this is the most realistic version of reality. The opposition to this is, this undeniable emergent emerged from something, it cannot be nothing, but this lead to an infinite regress.
As such, the belief that "consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal emergent property but a necessary feature involved in structuring reality and creating facts about that reality".
In this case, there is no issue with an infinite regress.
But for the majority as driven by an evolution default, this such thought trigger a very painful cognitive dissonance that drive them to their evolutionary default view of reality which is unrealistic.
That "consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal emergent property but a necessary feature involved in structuring reality and creating facts about that reality" is not an absolute view, but it is the most realistic view without the negative baggage of the realists' view.
It is realistic view that had a greater potential in contributing to greater progress to the individuals and humanity. Note for example many folds contribution of Quantum Physics [antirealist] over and in comparison to the Einsteinian [realist] and Newtonian [realist and theological realist].
In addition, the antirealist view redirect control to humanity rather than surrendering to the mercies of an independent reality out there [nature, gods, spirits, God, etc.].
Do you have a counter to the above?