A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 7:41 pm ............
Another example is your "This is a goat" and "This is a bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion".
Two different descriptions that have different meanings both of which can be true since they are not mutually exclusive.
...................
They are both right, their brains are merely "speaking" in different languages.
I am an Empirical Realist [mind-independence] and at the same time a Transcendental Idealism [conditioned upon human conditions].
Empirical Realism is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [conditioned upon human conditions],thus what is ultimately real cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Noted, Indirect Realism [philosophical realism] is a belief that things exist independent to the human mind.

You observe independent things [thing] 'out there,' you express;
1. "This is a goat"
2. "This is a bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion"
or possibly,
3. "This is a load of meat and bones with furs and so on"
4. etc.

If you think carefully, for indirect-realists, 1-4 are separate independent things.
You insist it is the 'same thing' in different languages.
But what is that 'same thing' that is supposedly permanent and 'constant'.
Btw, the only thing that is constant is change, not some mind-independent thing.
Since change is the only constant, there is no way you can ever nail "what is that 'same thing' that is supposedly permanent and 'constant' " in accordance to Indirect Realism.
Therefore Indirect Realism is a false.

I had argued fundamentally, Indirect Realism [philosophical realism] of mind-independence is merely an evolutionary default to facilitate survival that is optimize for our then and even current state, but not towards the future to facilitate greater progress of humanity with awareness of greater global and galactical threats.

I argued what is really and most real is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK and therefore cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

If you're like Kant, you might agree with Berkeley that our visual perception is at all times, in all situations, tainted by subjectivity, but you will argue that mind-independent reality nonetheless exists, it's just that it is unknowable to us.
Kant refuted Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.
Kant never agreed that "mind-independent reality nonetheless exists" instead he proved that "mind-independent reality nonetheless exists" is illusory, nevertheless a useful illusion.

Kant did mention the mind-independent thing-in-itself is 'unknowable' is some sense, but ultimately there is no possibility of it to be known to be real.
  • For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
    and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
    and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
    CPR Kant A280 B336
The thing-in-itself [pls. things-in-themselves] is merely a thought, i.e. an intelligible object.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot observe anything without using some sort of language.
This is not true at all.
We act upon instincts [no language needed] when triggered by triggers observed.
In the interview, [Daniel] Everett challenges the nativist theories of Noam Chomsky, arguing that Chomsky only focuses on grammar, which is only a small part of language and does not consider social or cultural origins. Everett discusses his findings on Piraha, one of nearly 8,000 spoken languages in the world, arguing that it is no different from any other language in terms of language acquisition.

Everett states that current theories of language learning do not consider semiotics and inferential reasoning and need revision. The interview also touches on the relationship between language and thought, where Everett argues that language and culture exist in a symbiotic relationship, with each one necessarily shaping and affecting the other.

According to Everett, ChatGPT has shown that language acquisition is possible without any innate grammar or language rules. This is achieved through the use of massive amounts of data, as demonstrated by Large Language Models.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:33 am For an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] there is no illusory goat at all.
Yes, the goat is still eating grandma' roses, but what that real goat "is" must be qualified to a human-based FSK [like modal dependent realism] e.g.
The term "illusionary" is the qualification.

Qual. Quale. Qualification.

Are you ever going to connect the dots, or are you just going to keep spinning round, and round, and round?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:04 am I had argued fundamentally, Indirect Realism [philosophical realism] of mind-independence is merely an evolutionary default to facilitate survival
Let's look at this a bit.
Indirect realism [or realism in general] facilitates survival. This is asserted here.
VA also asserts that Indired Realism is false.

So, the question becomes: why does sometihng false facilitate survival (presumably better than what is truer)

Note: I am not saying this cannot be the case. I just think it's worth exploring. Or in VA's case, since he is making both these assertions, I think it would help his position if he fleshed this out.

When we explore this one way would be to come up with other beliefs that, while false, aid humans. I think that can be useful. It can certainly show that there is no rule that false things can be benificial.

But let's find something that is a close parallel to this ontological issue: realism.

What ontological beliefs are false and helpful.

Of course giving other examples is not the only way to support what might seem like a contradiction being the case.

If realism is more useful than anti-realism for survival, why isn't it also more true? Or another way to come at that: wouldn't the fact that it is useful for survival indicate it is true or partly true? And if some other ontological position is less effective, why wouldn't this indicate at least a possible falsehood in that position?

In the spirit of exploration, have at this?

A hidden assumption can be that evolution will lead to the best solutions. This is not necessarily the case. It can lead to adequate or neutral patterns and traits ina species. Here VA is asserting that indirect realism is a belief that aids in survival. Those who support this position and those who are critical of it and those who are just curious can all keep in mind that we don't have to follow his assumption. It may or may not help his position in general.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:19 am Let's look at this a bit.
Indirect realism [or realism in general] facilitates survival.
Anti-realism facilitates survival better.

In addition to mitigating all the directly and indirectly observable threats. Like bears, and storms; and wild fires.
Anti-realism is also mitigating threats only "visible" to your mind's abstract eye. Global pandemics. Systemic, global heart diesase. Impending storms - 3 days away. Early signs of disease. Anti-realism allows us to combat the arrow of time itself - entropy.

Once you have a good predictive model anti-realism allows you to observe the future. Realism doesn't.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:19 am What ontological beliefs are false and helpful.
Morality.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:19 am If realism is more useful than anti-realism for survival, why isn't it also more true?
Because your conception of truth is Newtonian, not Darwinian.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:28 am Anti-realism facilitates survival better.
So, does that point to a problem in VA's argument: why didn't anti-realism evolve (so far) to the dominant ontological attitude (or did it?).
In addition to mitigating all the directly and indirectly observable threats. Like bears, and storms; and wild fires.
How does anti-realism mitigate these?
Anti-realism is also mitigating threats only "visible" to your mind's abstract eye. Global pandemics. Systemic, global heart diesase. Impending storms - 3 days away. Anti-realism allows us to combat the arrow of time itself - entropy.
Can you elaborate both assertions: 1) that those 'visible' threats you mention are mitigated and then also 2) how antirealism allows us to control entropy.
Once you have a good predictive model anti-realism allows you to observe the future. Realism doesn't.
How so? Also I noted 'observe'. Presumably realism allows for possible prediction. But I assume 'observe' was a careful choice. Can you elaborate?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:19 am What ontological beliefs are false and helpful.
Morality.
Yes, I was thinking about this as the first potentially useful falsehood or set of falsehoods. And I suppose one could argue potentially false.
My first reaction is that it's not quite the same as the realism/antirealism choice for species. I realize this is controversial, but it has to do with how individuals relate to each other. Practices/heuristics that are beneficial (and perhaps not just for those living but for the sustainability of the species) might be helpful, but not necessarily true or not necessarily true over time. IOW stone age tribal people might thrive best with one morality and one different from that in modern society. But it might be better that the tribal group believes these moral truths are timeless, universal, deontologically true (not just consequentially true or useful).

But then something like realism/antirealism seems more global to me. It affects or at least describes not just interpersonal behavior but what is happening in all moments an organism is interacting with anything, be it considered living or not. Of course, that's a realist description.

Of course animists and panpsychists would disagree, at least potentially.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:28 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:19 am Let's look at this a bit.
Indirect realism [or realism in general] facilitates survival.
Anti-realism facilitates survival better.
Yes, "Indirect realism [or realism in general] facilitates survival" but Anti- [philosophical]-realism facilitates survival better.

I want to clarify, I have conflated the evolutionary default of external_ness and mind-independence per se with the ideological ism of Indirect-realism.
That conflation is only for simplicity sake and relative comparison.

In evolution, what is critical is survival of the individual[s] even it has to resort to lies or falsehoods in a certain circumstances; truth per se is secondary especially in the early phases of evolution up to the present, but I believe evolution is driving more and more towards truths in the future.

Hoffman had argued about this extensively;
Donald Hoffman: Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4
The greatest useful lie or falsehood evolution had enabled is the idea of God which is illusory, but this illusory God has benefited humans tremendously; that is why the majority of humans [>80%] up to now are theists. Without god as a security blanket theists would have been paralyzed with fears and unable to survive efficiently thus hindering the purposes evolution is driving towards.
There are many other lies that evolution had programmed within humans that has contributed to facilitate their survival.

The problem is, these supposedly illusions from the sense of externalness, i.e. mind-independence is dogmatically grasp as an ideological "ism" as in theism and philosophical realism. In the case of malignant theism, there is a great risk of the extermination of the human species as commanded by God by extremist Islamists.
As I had argued, philosophical-realism's view of no independent Moral Objectivity is
a hindrance to expedite moral competence within humanity to face greater evil in the future [not now].

On the other hand, anti-philosophical-realism [Kantian] [FSK-ed objective morality ] will facilitate the expeditious progress of morality within mankind in the future.
This is based on the claim that reality and things are not mind-independent, but part and parcel of reality; thus by changing what is within humans [objective moral facts] will contribute to moral progress.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:28 am Anti-realism facilitates survival better.
So, does that point to a problem in VA's argument: why didn't anti-realism evolve (so far) to the dominant ontological attitude (or did it?).
Evolution doesn't care about democracy. Evolution only cares about who's left in the end.

If realism makes you default to the notion that the ideas in one's head are not real (including all abstract and counter-factual reasoning), then I'm absolutely backing the other horse. The risk managers.

You don't need truth to be alive, but you need to be ablive in order to pursue truth and all that jazz.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am How does anti-realism mitigate these?
It copies realism where it works; or it devises better methods where it doesn't.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am Can you elaborate both assertions: 1) that those 'visible' threats you mention are mitigated
Well, if it doesn't - then neither does realism. Because I am copying realists.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am and then also 2) how antirealism allows us to control entropy.
Anti-realists take time seriously. We lie to ourselves that time is ontological. And then we can do stuff like build computational models which evolve over time (think Conway's game of life). And we can simulate outcomes before they actually happen.

Computations operate at a faster time-scale than human brains; or reality - you don't have to wait for the future to happen in order to see it.

That's literally the utility of all predictive models. They are ontological lies which buy you time.

If you want to get meta-meta-meta-metaphorical here. The inductive conclusion of this "predict consequence of choice - act in best interest" is Christianity's Heaven or Hell idea.

On a long enough time line our choices will take us to one of those two destinations.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am How so? Also I noted 'observe'. Presumably realism allows for possible prediction. But I assume 'observe' was a careful choice. Can you elaborate?
Realism has no story re: morality. Where in relaity are you going to find your value-system; and besides reality is this crafty gauntlet that kills 99.99% of all species that ever lived, I am (quite literally) anti-reality. It's public enemy No.1.

If you can model the parts of the world - you can simulate it. On a computer. You can see the future. Today. With predictive models you have to use your imagination; but with computation the visualisation becomes tangible.

You can observe the result of a physics experiment without actually doing the experiment. You can observe the weather evolve. This is economically more advantageous to humans playing the "survival of the fittest" game.

Everything from personalized medicine, to material synthesis. TL;DR designing reality as we want it. The Christian "myth" of The Creator.

If parsimony matters, then let us be parsimonious about time; which (metaphorically or literally) translates to observing tomorrow without wasting a day to get there.

Blah blah blah. Induction.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:19 am What ontological beliefs are false and helpful.
Morality.
Yes, I was thinking about this as the first potentially useful falsehood or set of falsehoods. And I suppose one could argue potentially false.
My first reaction is that it's not quite the same as the realism/antirealism choice for species. I realize this is controversial, but it has to do with how individuals relate to each other. Practices/heuristics that are beneficial (and perhaps not just for those living but for the sustainability of the species) might be helpful, but not necessarily true or not necessarily true over time. IOW stone age tribal people might thrive best with one morality and one different from that in modern society. But it might be better that the tribal group believes these moral truths are timeless, universal, deontologically true (not just consequentially true or useful).
[/quote]
If all a "false" religion and singing praise to a non-existent God ever did was get people to congretate and form societies - that's already an evolutionary win if you ask me.

The religion is an epiphenomenon. The primary benefit there is the socialising/bonding.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:19 am But then something like realism/antirealism seems more global to me. It affects or at least describes not just interpersonal behavior but what is happening in all moments an organism is interacting with anything, be it considered living or not. Of course, that's a realist description.

Of course animists and panpsychists would disagree, at least potentially.
Anti-realism isn't against reality. It's against realism/realists' default assumptions.

That the stuff in your head isn't real. It's too limiting and too dismissive off the bat.

The cost is too great. The things in our head are the most valuable tool we have for survival.

There's a fundamental concept computer scientists obsess over - it's reification. Turning an abstract idea into an actual computer program. This act of creation turns the "non-real" into something real. So... the realist presupposition seems moot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reificati ... r_science)
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:13 am Yes, "Indirect realism [or realism in general] facilitates survival" but Anti- [philosophical]-realism facilitates survival better.

I want to clarify, I have conflated the evolutionary default of external_ness and mind-independence per se with the ideological ism of Indirect-realism.
That conflation is only for simplicity sake and relative comparison.

In evolution, what is critical is survival of the individual[s]
No, it's the survival of genes. Individuals will sacrifice for children or the group. Sometimes individuals have nothing directly to do with the genes that get carried on - drone bees.

even it has to resort to lies or falsehoods in a certain circumstances; truth per se is secondary especially in the early phases of evolution up to the present, but I believe evolution is driving more and more towards truths in the future.
One wonders why it hit on a less good realism if anti-realism is better. Of course, this is possible, but I think some curiosity about this is missing. Especially since VA sees realism in all organisms going back to the common ancestor. So, all these diverse organisms, in his model, have realism as a base. I don't know how he knows this, but why did antirealism, so far, not get selected for?

Hoffman had argued about this extensively;
Donald Hoffman: Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4
The greatest useful lie or falsehood evolution had enabled is the idea of God which is illusory, but this illusory God has benefited humans tremendously; that is why the majority of humans [>80%] up to now are theists. Without god as a security blanket theists would have been paralyzed with fears and unable to survive efficiently thus hindering the purposes evolution is driving towards.[/quote]How do we know this? What kind of experiment coudl demonstrate this. Could other mechanisms have evolved? For example some kind of limbic system cut off. It just shuts down emotional expression when anxiety gets to a problematic level.
There are many other lies that evolution had programmed within humans that has contributed to facilitate their survival.
So how do these things work when they are based on reality? Why did we end up with so many untruths, when truths work better? I mean, really, early organisms cannot have had conceptions of reality being either realism based or antirealism based. They worked on reactions. Why didn't antirealisms advantages get selected for?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:46 am Why didn't antirealisms advantages get selected for?
You are pre-supposing that the selection process has some sort of intention/preferences. e.g it knows what to select for.

It's nothing like that. There are no advantageous traits a priori.

If all the truth-tellers die and all the liars survive the latest gauntlet - lying was an advantageous trait.

For reasons you can only unpack a posteriori the extinction of the truth-tellers.

e.g your eyes are distorting the truth and lying to you right now for all sorts of evolutionary reasons. Even ancient architects knew about this and exploited it e.g the pillars of the Pantheon in Athens are intentionally skew. But they appear straight/perfect to your imperfect eye.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:53 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:46 am Why didn't antirealisms advantages get selected for?
You are pre-supposing that the selection process has some sort of intention/preferences. e.g it knows what to select for.
No, I'm not. I am responding to someone who seems to believe that that's how evolution works. At least sometimes he does. As I said earlier...
A hidden assumption can be that evolution will lead to the best solutions. This is not necessarily the case. It can lead to adequate or neutral patterns and traits ina species. Here VA is asserting that indirect realism is a belief that aids in survival. Those who support this position and those who are critical of it and those who are just curious can all keep in mind that we don't have to follow his assumption. It may or may not help his position in general.
It's nothing like that. There are no advantageous traits a priori.

If all the truth-tellers die and all the liars survive the latest gauntlet - lying was an advantageous trait.

For reasons you can only unpack a posteriori the extinction of the truth-tellers.

e.g your eyes are distorting the truth and lying to you right now for all sorts of evolutionary reasons. Even ancient architects knew about this and exploited it e.g the pillars of the Pantheon in Athens are intentionally skew. But they appear straight/perfect to your imperfect eye.
Yes, I realize all this. However VA is presenting this in binary terms. Realism helped with survival and it's false. It's not true, antirealism is true. Realism is false. And yet it helps with survival. And in his descriptions realism is held by all organisms going back to the earliest common ancestor. IOW millions of species, all of them, including us, until recently, have all used realism (I'm not making up his opinion on realism). But it's false. Period. You'd think with all those species and the advantage of antirealism, somewhere in there antirealism would have succeeded. (of course perhaps some crab is an antirealist, how would we know? But then I am responding to his knowing.)

I will respond differently to you and others depending on my understanding of your positions.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:53 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:46 am Why didn't antirealisms advantages get selected for?
You are pre-supposing that the selection process has some sort of intention/preferences. e.g it knows what to select for.
No, I'm not. I am responding to someone who seems to believe that that's how evolution works. At least sometimes he does. As I said earlier...
But the question is loaded with the pre-supposition.

It's not why anti-realism didn't det selected for.
It s whether realism or anti-realism is more likely to get selected out.

Here's reality. Here you are. What (say realists) should we do about it? It's not like you can acquire your goals from reality.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:17 pm Yes, I realize all this. However VA is presenting this in binary terms. Realism helped with survival and it's false. It's not true, antirealism is true. Realism is false. And yet it helps with survival.
Because truth and falsehood aren't even in point. One's more useful (for the purpose of survival) than the other.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:17 pm And in his descriptions realism is held by all organisms going back to the earliest common ancestor. IOW millions of species, all of them, including us, until recently, have all used realism (I'm not making up his opinion on realism). But it's false. Period. You'd think with all those species and the advantage of antirealism, somewhere in there antirealism would have succeeded. (of course perhaps some crab is an antirealist, how would we know? But then I am responding to his knowing.)

I will respond differently to you and others depending on my understanding of your positions.
I get that too, but here's the crux of it. 99.99% of species are extinct. So realistically speaking reality "wants" you dead. Or it's going to kill you anyway.

Well. OK then. Fuck reality.

I refuse to die easily. My plans for me dissagree with reality's plans for me.

And that's another way of being an anti-realist.

If you want to talk physics - the universe in general is an entropic process (it tends to disorder). Life is an anti-pattern. Life is negentropic. It tends towards order.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:28 am Anti-realism facilitates survival better.
So, does that point to a problem in VA's argument: why didn't anti-realism evolve (so far) to the dominant ontological attitude (or did it?).
[/quote]
Evolution doesn't care about democracy. Evolution only cares about who's left in the end.
So, how does a binarily false belief - realism work for all the species that have existed on earth, according to VA? Not just a distortion, or partially false interpretation: realism is false, period. Yet, according to VA it helped for survival.
If realism makes you default to the notion that the ideas in one's head are not real (including all abstract and counter-factual reasoning), then I'm absolutely backing the other horse. The risk managers.
I didn't understand this.
You don't need truth to be alive, but you need to be ablive in order to pursue truth and all that jazz.
It seems like something would be true about realism as understood by organisms or it wouldn't work at all.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am How does anti-realism mitigate these?
It copies realism where it works; or it devises better methods where it doesn't.
Can you give some examples, especially of the latter.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am Can you elaborate both assertions: 1) that those 'visible' threats you mention are mitigated
Well, if it doesn't - then neither does realism. Because I am copying realists.
I didn't get this.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am and then also 2) how antirealism allows us to control entropy.
Anti-realists take time seriously. We lie to ourselves that time is ontological. And then we can do stuff like build computational models which evolve over time (think Conway's game of life). And we can simulate outcomes before they actually happen.
Do you mean realists can simulate outcomes?
Computations operate at a faster time-scale than human brains; or reality - you don't have to wait for the future to happen in order to see it.
Is computation dependent on anti-realism? Does realism not allow for both computation and prediction?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am How so? Also I noted 'observe'. Presumably realism allows for possible prediction. But I assume 'observe' was a careful choice. Can you elaborate?
Realism has no story re: morality. Where in relaity are you going to find your value-system; and besides reality is this crafty gauntlet that kills 99.99% of all species that ever lived, I am (quite literally) anti-reality. It's public enemy No.1.
Some realists are also rationalists. They can posit moral a priori or intuitions. (as an aside VA's argument that there are objective moral facts is a realist argument: the whole all humans have mirror neurons which lead to empathy)
If you can model the parts of the world - you can simulate it. On a computer. You can see the future.
That sounds realist. There is a future and via modeling and computing we can see it in advance.
Today. With predictive models you have to use your imagination; but with computation the visualisation becomes tangible.

You can observe the result of a physics experiment without actually doing the experiment. You can observe the weather evolve. This is economically more advantageous to humans playing the "survival of the fittest" game.
And this is antirealist? One can't do this as a realist?
Anti-realism isn't against reality. It's against realism/realists' default assumptions.

That the stuff in your head isn't real. It's too limiting and too dismissive off the bat.

The cost is too great. The things in our head are the most valuable tool we have for survival.
So realists can't value what's in our/their heads?
There's a fundamental concept computer scientists obsess over - it's reification. Turning an abstract idea into an actual computer program. This act of creation turns the "non-real" into something real. So... the realist presupposition seems moot.
It seems like realists understand that one can imagine things then try to make them.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:21 pm But the question is loaded with the pre-supposition.
Directed at someone with that presupposition.
I should think you'd be the first person to understand this pattern in an interaction since you use it yourself.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:08 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:21 pm But the question is loaded with the pre-supposition.
Directed at someone with that presupposition.
I should think you'd be the first person to understand this pattern in an interaction since you use it yourself.
I don't actually. I do the exact opposite thing.

If I thnk you pre-suppose X I will bake not-X in my presupposition. Because that's how information flow works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:24 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:46 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:28 am Anti-realism facilitates survival better.
So, does that point to a problem in VA's argument: why didn't anti-realism evolve (so far) to the dominant ontological attitude (or did it?).
Evolution doesn't care about democracy. Evolution only cares about who's left in the end.

If realism makes you default to the notion that the ideas in one's head are not real (including all abstract and counter-factual reasoning), then I'm absolutely backing the other horse. The risk managers.
The sense of external_ness [illusory] is an evolutionary default and naturally selected for >3 billion years.
Since the sense of external_ness is the default, i.e. for 3 billion years embedded in our ancient ancestors, there was no sense of significant emergence of the internal_ness then.

I wrote this;
  • The problem is, these supposedly illusions from the sense of externalness, i.e. mind-independence is dogmatically grasp as an ideological "ism" as in theism and philosophical realism.
The sense of internal_ness only because an ideological 'ism' i.e. theism about 10,000 years ago and philosophical realism about 5000 years ago. Then it has utility, but that is was grasp dogmatically, this deem immutable, that is the problem when humans continued to evolve with a wider and deeper range of knowledge.

To counter the above, anti-philosophical-realism was evident with the emergence of Buddhism which then was a 180 degree paradigm shift from theistic Hindu realism. Perhaps there was already an emergence of anti-philosophical realism earlier, but it was not very evident.

Point is when I use the term 'philosophical realism' and anti-philosophical-realism, it is very general [for convenience sake], but to be precise we need to take into account the above evolutionary timeline from the present to 3.5 billion years ago whence the relevant term is the "sense of externality" as an evolutionary default.

We cannot and should not get rid of that default "sense of externality" [to be applied optimally] which is embedded deep in our 'reptillian' brain, but humanity must get wean off of the dogmatic ideological "ism" of 'philosophical realism' and its likes to enable acceptance of change for the better.

Whilst I do mention certain 'ism' in relation to anti-philosophical realism, that is not the main intention, rather humanity must recognize ALL humans are part and parcel of reality and thus our actions will inevitably contribute to 'reality'.

Thus the need to promote actions that are good and restraint evil actions which are negative to the well-being of humanity within reality - this anti-philosophical realism's basis of what moral objectivity is about.
Post Reply