Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:04 amI 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.
They are 3 different descriptions of one and the same portion of reality. Since they are not mutually exclusive, they can all be accurate. And they often are. Any real life goat is a goat AND a cluster of molecules AND a load of meat and bones.
What is reality, truths, knowledge and objectivity is always conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
You just cannot said there is a the same portion of reality that exists independent of a specific FSK.
If you insist, then on what authority are you depending on to support your claim, God, father, mother?
Yes, the above will have 3 different descriptions, but of 3 different emergences and realization of reality. Note this thread;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145
There is no way what is a goat via observation and justified via the science-biology-FSK is the same as that goat when justified via the Physics-Chemistry FSK.
You insist it is the 'same thing' in different languages.
It is one and the same portion of reality described in 3 different ways. All 3 statements are expressed in one and the same language, namely, English language.
Note my point re emergence and realization within different FSKs.
But what is that 'same thing' that is supposedly permanent and 'constant'.
That's irrelevant. We're talking about the contents of a portion of reality at a single point in time. There is no change at this level. In order to have change, we need more than one point in time.
Yes, with reference to a single point in time. Note time is not a mind-independent thing, thus whatever you ground it cannot be mind-independent.
The 3 different emergences with 3 different description can be reduced to a common denominator, i.e. in terms of particles and quarks.
But what is the resultant of these particles and quarks are dependent of human observers as in the wave function collapse which can either be a wave or particle.
When different observers and do the same experiment at the same time, there will be variations.
Thus at the ultimate level, there is no mind independent fixed portion of reality as you are claiming.
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.
That's what you think. I have my own suspicions. I suspect that anti-realism is actively promoted in order to ensure that the average intelligence is at a low level so that people can be more easily controlled. It has more to do with politics than philosophy.
You pulling out a rabbit from nowhere.
Can you give examples?
Philosophical Realism is associated with theism, e.g. in Einstein's Realism, God does not play Dice.
The anti-realism of QM in counter to Einstein's Realism has since contribute to significant progress to humanity and is the basis for the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.
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.
You cannot construct a map of reality without using some sort of language. That does not have to be an interpersonal language, i.e. the kind that people use to communicate with each other. But it has to be some sort of language. A map of reality is made out of symbols. In order to construct it, you need symbols with which to construct it. A set of symbols, together with a set of rules that determine what kind of things those symbols can represent, is known as language. The 2D image that you see with your own eyes is an example of a map of reality constructed using some sort of visual language. Each color quale that constitutes that map is a symbol that has certain meaning assigned to it by the visual language that your brain is using. For example, the visual language that your brain is using specifies that a blue color quale cannot be used to represent anything other than affects created by light that has wavelength between 450nm and 495nm. Your brain could have used the same exact quale to represent any other kind of light -- or any light in general -- but it chose not to.
There is no doubt that language as evolved and adapted is critical for communication.
But language is not innate to human nature.