"Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Realism" taken without qualification refers to Philosophical Realism.

I've become absorbed by the varieties of what could be called anti-realism - silly name - which I think has very ancient roots, and which has re-flowered recently - perhaps strongly since WW2.

The irony you keep pointing out - no facts means no moral facts - is one of the more entertaining features of this interminable discussion.

As mentioned above,
Note there are many types of realism and idealism, so they are very relative and can go either way, i.e. a realist can be an idealist in another sense.
Normally when I claim 'idealism' it is Transcendental Idealism but at the same time I am an Empirical Realist.

Generally, "realism" [without qualification] is referenced to Philosophical Realism.

• Philosophical realism is ... the thesis that .. thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. -WIKI

Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.

So naturally, when human first philosophize [10,000 years ago, e.g. Hindus] they would have adopted reality in the 'Philosophical Realism' sense. i.e. there is only an external reality outside them, i.e. independent of their minds [human conditions].

PH: "anti-realism - silly name"
WHO ARE YOU, a philosophical gnat to say that?

Philosophy-wise, it was around 3000-2500 years ago that some rare philosophers who have had done very deep reflective thinking that turned the 10,000 philosophical realism paradigm 180 degrees to an Anti-Philosophical-Realism or in general anti-realism view.
The point is, in deliberation of reality, it cannot ignore the 'subjects' i.e. humans which are part and parcel of reality - all there is.

Anti-realism do recognize 'realism' but insist that 'realism' cannot be absolute, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Note the 'Two Truths' principle of Buddhism-proper.

So in general for 2500+ years, there was only anti-realism.
Note
-the anti-realism of Buddhism-proper.
-Protagoras - Man is the measure of all things.
-Heraclitus - no man step into the same river twice


It was only in the 1700s that the term 'Idealism' was introduced.

• It was first used in the abstract metaphysical sense "belief that reality is made up only of ideas" by Christian Wolff in 1747.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Then we have,
-Kant's Copernican Revolution - Transcendental Idealism, and his
Empirical Realism - what is real is empirical but subsumed within Transcendental Idealism.

So yes, anti-realism has ancient roots, i.e. to >2500 years ago as a counter to realism, i.e. philosophical realism.

Your 'realism' i.e. philosophical realism has more ancient roots, i.e. traceable via evolution to appx. 4 billion years ago.
What is so pathetic is, you are so arrogant in insisting your appx. 4 billion years old primal realism is the most realistic and de facto reality and other versions are nonsense.

The human-based fact is anti-realism, e.g. 'man is the measure of all things' which is all facts [human-based] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK [thus, objective].
A human based FSK [object] is possible.
There are objective moral facts.
Therefore morality is objective.
(note the detailed argument of the above are presented elsewhere in this section)

OP:
Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.
Because "realism" is so ingrained and habitualised with our fundamental survival, any counter to "realism" is often met with intellectual-violence directed toward the anti-realists.
At the extreme, anti-realists are killed by 'realists' to shut them up forever.

[Iwannaplato]

So,

"Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.

and so would be what VA calls
oughtness-not-to-kill-humans and
oughtness-to-kill

These 'oughtnesses' would also be evolutionary defaults, at least for homosapiens.

VA has transcended the evolutionary default of realism and become an anti-realist.
But for some reason the oughtnesses in the brain, as he frames them, are objective moral facts. We don't transcend the oughtness not to kill moral fact, for some reason. In fact, we should enhance that one.

And then, as I have pointed out elsewhere, what is the source of morals that leads VA to decide to enhance the first oughtness and not the second. It cannot be the current ratio of the oughtnesses in brains, because then there would be no need to do anything. He assesses the brain and human behavior from a moral standpoint and decides he wants to enhance one oughtness and not the other. He is not satisfied with our current state. (neither am I, that is not the issue I have with him). He is not satisfied with the current ratio or strength of these oughtnesses.

But given that he has transcended ontological realism why not transcend the oughtness not to kill humans? Why should we stay with either default?

The moment he argues why, we find his values and those values are not based on the current state of found neuronl structures in brains, what he calls oughtnesses. His morals have a different source.

So, where is his assessing moral standpoints coming from. It is not coming from the oughtnesses already present in brains as his arguments seem to imply.

And I suppose one could also ask...why isn't realism an oughtness, and then antirealism a more recent oughtness. And on what ground is it best to overide the current ratio/strength/influence of these standpoints? Given that the current ratio/strength/influence of these oughtnesses is an objective moral fact.

We find that there is an oughtness to believe in an independent external world.
We now, more recently, find there is an oughtness to think there is no indepedent .external world.

How do we decide which oughtnes to consider our core philosophical position?

Well, VA went to the Nobel Prize winners. He went to science.

But he can't go to science to demonstrate which oughtness around killing we ought to have, because we find both oughtneses in brains. And there is no guidepost in brains to say which one we should enhance. Neuroscience cannot possibly serve the function physics does in the other argument.

So, his choice has some other source, as yet unnamed.

Regardless of the fact that brains have these two oughtnesses he decides he wants to enhance the one with less violence.

That decision is not based on science. If oughtneses in the brain determine objective moral facts, then the way brains are right now is the objective moral good. That would then be a fact.

[Flannel Jesus]

Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.

It looks to me like your definition of philosophical realism shifts around quite a bit. Sometimes you use it to refer to the general idea that anything, at all, is objectively true or existent in a mind independent war. Other times you use it to refer to the idea that this place, this shared space, this universe most people call "reality" is objectively existent in a mind independent way.

But those two statements, while they have overlap, aren't synonymous. It's completely feasible to think that THIS place we call reality isn't real in an objective mind independent way, but that there is nevertheless A reality, SOME reality that is objectively real in a mind independent way.

[Flannel Jesus]

OP:
Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.
Because "realism" is so ingrained and habitualised with our fundamental survival, any counter to "realism" is often met with intellectual-violence directed toward the anti-realists.
At the extreme, anti-realists are killed by 'realists' to shut them up forever.

I also notice a strong philosophical conundrum in your framing here.

What else is a default from evolution because all living things are programmed for it, according to VA? Well, morality, right? Avoiding to VA, all living things are programmed with morality, and therefore, VA says, morality is objective. So, can we not use the same logic to conclude that philosophical realism is objective in the same way morality is?

[Iwannaplato]

OP:
Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.
Because "realism" is so ingrained and habitualised with our fundamental survival, any counter to "realism" is often met with intellectual-violence directed toward the anti-realists.
At the extreme, anti-realists are killed by 'realists' to shut them up forever.

I also notice a strong philosophical conundrum in your framing here.

What else is a default from evolution because all living things are programmed for it, according to VA? Well, morality, right? Avoiding to VA, all living things are programmed with morality, and therefore, VA says, morality is objective. So, can we not use the same logic to conclude that philosophical realism is objective in the same way morality is?

Agreed. I approached this similarly in a post above. VA, in fact, does not accept 'what is there'. He acknowledges we have oughtnesses to kill and oughtness not to kill, but he chooses to view us as at a primitive stage and that we need to enhance the latter oughtness. But the grounds cannot come from the oughtnesses themselves. There they are 2 oughtnesses in the brain, each with some degree of affect on behavior - accepting his model. There is no need to enhance one.

Some other species do not murder, like hares. They have a different oughtness set up. Which works for them. If we are going to give the brain's neural patterns authority to determine oughtnesses, well, there they are. And while, yes

culture

affects our behavior, these cultures developed out of our genes and neurons in relation to the various environments.

On what moral grounds do we intervene IF like VA objective moral facts are determined by looking at brains. And our brains have both oughtnesses.

And, so, as you point out, if the default oughtnesses in our brains are moral objective facts, then realism is also an oughtness to believe in a mind independent world. On what grounds do we change that. Well, alright, some scientists believe there is no mind independent world.

But in neuroscience, which research do we appeal to the authority of to decide that oughtness 1 should be enhanced and oughtness 2 should not be?

There isn't any.

HOwever we can have preferences. We can want, like VA, to enhance the oughtness not to murder. And that preference did not come from studying neuronal patterns. And it is not universal, let alone objective. I happen to prefer it, however, myself.

[Iwannaplato]

OP:
Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.
Because "realism" is so ingrained and habitualised with our fundamental survival, any counter to "realism" is often met with intellectual-violence directed toward the anti-realists.
At the extreme, anti-realists are killed by 'realists' to shut them up forever.

I also notice a strong philosophical conundrum in your framing here.

What else is a default from evolution because all living things are programmed for it, according to VA? Well, morality, right? Avoiding to VA, all living things are programmed with morality, and therefore, VA says, morality is objective. So, can we not use the same logic to conclude that philosophical realism is objective in the same way morality is?

To put my previous post in a different simpler way...

I think VA will have to say something like
realism is ok in some contexts but antirealism is more true, we have transcended the default with qm
and
oughtness to kill has had its place but oughtness not to kill is better - we can transcend the default ration/strength/degree of influence of oughtness 2. But how does he back this up using neuroscience. Neuroscience finds both aggressive and empathetic neural patterns, in his terms oughtnesses. That's the way they are in homo sapiens. Of course we can decide to tweak them, but the grounds will not be science. They will be the real source of his morals and these are not coming from the discovery of mirror neurons.

But how he arrives at each transcendance of these TWO types of objective moral facts in brains should be interesting.

And if we can transcend evolutionary defaults (like, realism and oughtnesses) why must we simply choose this oughtness over that one. We could choose the oughtness to dominate others, but not kill them. That could be our guiding heuristic. Once we allow for the transcendance of defaults, which in a sense I think we can, how are our choices objective moral facts? Is it morally better to be an antirealist? On what grounds is it morally better?

[Skepdick]

To put my previous post in a different simpler way...

I think VA will have to say something like
realism is ok in some contexts but antirealism is more true, we have transcended the default with qm
and
oughtness to kill has had its place but oughtness not to kill is better - we can transcend the default ration/strength/degree of influence of oughtness 2. But how does he back this up using neuroscience. Neuroscience finds both aggressive and empathetic neural patterns, in his terms oughtnesses. That's the way they are in homo sapiens. Of course we can decide to tweak them, but the grounds will not be science. They will be the real source of his morals and these are not coming from the discovery of mirror neurons.

But how he arrives at each transcendance of these TWO types of objective moral facts in brains should be interesting.

Arguing over which one is true (realism vs anti-realism) is the exact same problem as arguing over which one is true (the morality or immorality of X).

The language game is rigged. The only winning move is to not play (by the rules).

[Veritas Aequitas]

OP:
Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.
Because "realism" is so ingrained and habitualised with our fundamental survival, any counter to "realism" is often met with intellectual-violence directed toward the anti-realists.
At the extreme, anti-realists are killed by 'realists' to shut them up forever.

I also notice a strong philosophical conundrum in your framing here.

What else is a default from evolution because all living things are programmed for it, according to VA? Well, morality, right? Avoiding to VA, all living things are programmed with morality, and therefore, VA says, morality is objective. So, can we not use the same logic to conclude that philosophical realism is objective in the same way morality is?

Yes, we can use the same logic to conclude that philosophical realism is objective in the same way morality is; but philosophical realism has its limitation where its objectivity is delusional and of low degrees and its cons are outweighing its pros as evolution evolves forward into the future.

My principle is,
whatever the 'fact' it is always conditioned upon a human-based FSK [also the seldom mentioned FS_Reality, i.e. FSR, thus this collective consensus makes it objective [subject to degrees].

1. The most critical default [oughtness] for human beings is to survive at long as possible till the inevitable therefore to facilitate the preservation of the human species. [exceptions are due to damage of the neural algorithm].

2. Others which are critical defaults from evolution for human beings are the primary & basics i.e. to breathe, the 4Fs [Food & drink, Fight, Flight and 'Fuck']; the oughtness-to-kill, and others [jealousy .. etc.] to facilitate survival.

3. There are the secondary defaults [ought_s] which are not very active in the early phases of human evolution, for example, tribalism [us vs them], the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, to know [science], the one-up [improve upon the previous], the focus on the external reality and so on.

4. There is the general rule of optimization [costs versus benefits, pros vs cons] of the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity as a species against the various constraints and odds humans faced within its environment.

4. In the early stages the oughtness of tribalism was critical to facilitate survival via co-operation which enable synergy.
The consequences of tribalism and jealousy lead to the killing of other humans; if this is not inhibited, then it will defeat 1 the most basic ought. As such there was an adaption with the oughtness-not-to-kill humans which is not very active but sufficient to prevent extermination of the human species [facilitate by other adaptations].

5. With the unfoldment of the 'to know' function [science] humans are more knowledgeable to the inherent threats to humanity within the environment.
For example [one among many] with the knowledge of viruses and other toxins, it would only take a few humans to be capable of exterminating the human species via cheap biological WMDs or knowledge of Physics using nuclear WMDs.
As such, it is only logical and rational to activate the moral objective oughtness-not-to-kill humans to its fullest potential so there is no opportunity for the human species to be exterminated thus meeting the objective in 1.

6. It is the same with Philosophical Realism.
Initially [200k years ago] there was no realism [i.e. no philosophy till 10,000 years ago] in human evolution but merely the objective ought to focus on the external world to facilitate survival.
This is critical for all humans in various context but the problem is when this sense of externalness is converted into an uncompromising ideology, re an "ism" i.e. 'realism' as 'philosophical realism' when human started to philosophize.

7. As with the oughtness-to-kill, the oughtness to direct attention externality has its limits when human evolved to be more complex.
This is taken to the extreme of Descartes' dualism where the mind and body are separate and both separate from the external world. This lead to the idea of an external God out there delivering commands to believers to the extent of commanding believers to kill other believers [humans].

8. The other point is where humans are so ignorant they are part and parcel of reality - all there is - such that they could do anything to the external environment and being ignorant their evil acts will turn around to bewitch them.

9. The Buddhists discovered that all sufferings most humans suffered are not from the external world, e.g. satan, devil and other humans, etc. In this sense where sufferings are concern, the Buddhists adopt the sense there are no independent external world [no independent things] but whatever the reality it is entangled with the human conditions.
As such, by changing the human conditions they can manage sufferings, especially the inherent existential crisis.
This is the advantage of adopting the changing the realism paradigm to the anti-realism paradigm.

[Flannel Jesus]

Ah, so evolved mental and behavioural traits in living things can be delusional!

So morality can be too

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah, so evolved mental and behavioural traits in living things can be delusional!

So morality can be too

But, note the realization of reality stretches on a delusional - truth continuum.
Reality is an Illusion? Donald Hoffman
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39218

Evolution will do whatever it takes to ensure the preservation of the human species, even it has to depend on delusions.
Note the idea of God is illusory yet >90% of humans are theists who find the idea of God [illusory] therapeutic.
Humans had evolved with loads of illusions to facilitate survival effectively.

But there is also an evolutionary path of progress to deal with the awareness of greater threats to the humans species, e.g. the potential of the human species being exterminated via various factors, e.g. a rogue meteor crashing onto to earth, or the abuse of WMDs [nuclear and biological].
To be effective with the above, evolution steers humanity toward more refined truths with greater credibility and reliability via credible and reliable human based FSKs, e.g. the human-based scientific FSK.

When philosophical realists rely on their delusional ideology [mind-independent] to view moral facts, it is rightly delusional; thus they are merely refuting their own ideology.

In my case, what is morality is objective which is leveraged on the human-based objective moral facts conditioned upon the human-based science-biological FSK and moral-FSK. Because my moral FSK is leaning on the human-based science FSK, it has a higher degree of credibility and reliability, thus it is more true than being delusion on the continuum.

Yes,
"so evolved mental and behavioural traits in living things can be delusional!
So morality can be too" ONLY if we rely on philosophical realism.
However, if we rely on anti-philosophical-realism we can steer morality away from the delusional end to the greater truth end of the continuum.

[Flannel Jesus]

In summary:

realism is a default from our evolution.

morality is a default from our evolution.

realism may be mistaken, and therefore not an objective fact.

morality likewise may not be objective.

[Iwannaplato]

In summary:

realism is a default from our evolution.

morality is a default from our evolution.

realism may be mistaken, and therefore not an objective fact.

morality likewise may not be an objective fact.

Yes.

Or - in relation to the bolded postion - if we assume that what is found in the brain is objecrtive moral facts, then using the oughtnesses we find in current brains to determine our morality, there would be nothing to change. We find oughtnesses that are aggressive and oughtnesses that are empathetic in brain. If what we find in the brain determines objective moral facts, then whatever is there is what should be there. Those oughtnesses in those ratios/degrees of influence.

If we decide, as VA has, that we need to be more empathetic and thus enhance the mirror neurons, there is no justification for this in the brain.

So, the origins for his decision to enhance mirror neurons is coming from somewhere else, not from the objective moral facts in the brain.

[Flannel Jesus]

So people's brains who have no empathy for other humans, who desire to seek personal gain no matter the harm it causes to others - that stuff should be there? Because that's what we find in that person's brain?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In summary:

1. realism is a default from our evolution.

2. morality is a default from our evolution.

3. realism may be mistaken, and therefore not an objective fact.

4. morality likewise may not be objective.

The above 1, 3 and 4 is only applicable to a philosophical realists who assumed everything is absolutely independent of the mind [human conditions].

For a anti-philosophical-realist who recognize the existence of human-based FSKs, thus human-based moral FSK, morality is objective [by definition].

[Flannel Jesus]

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point