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

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: Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:43 am The sense of external_ness [illusory] is an evolutionary default and naturally selected for >3 billion years..
The sense that we should not kill others based on empathy is an evolutionary default.

Some things that VA finds in the brain he treats as objective facts. Why? Because they are in the brain. Objective moral facts.
Some things that VA finds in the brain he treats as evolutionary defaults that he thinks we do not need to treat as objective. Urges to kill or be aggressive are not objective moral facts and we can try to suppress them. Realism is not an objective position because it is an evolutionary default.

Get it!

When it is convenient VA appeals to the authority of the brain. It's in all brains, therefore it is objective.
Unless it is convenient to dismiss something in the brain because it is something that had evolved as the default.

And it is ALL realist. His arguments are realist.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

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

Post by Magnus Anderson »

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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.
Which is, ironically enough, exactly what Stephen hawking was saying in his "model dependent realism" <- that multiple models can be real simultaneously.
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena. It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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: 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.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

The underlying potential that gives rise to the perception of the goat in a human mind exists independently of the mind, and would do so whether there is a mind or not, I would have thought.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:28 am
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.
Which is, ironically enough, exactly what Stephen hawking was saying in his "model dependent realism" <- that multiple models can be real simultaneously.
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena. It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
Yes, equally valid realities exist, but he did not claim they are exactly the same.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:51 am Yes, equally valid realities exist, but he did not claim they are exactly the same.
Who didn't claim that? Hawking? What do you mean "exactly the same"? Why is that relevant?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:51 am Yes, equally valid realities exist, but he did not claim they are exactly the same.
Who didn't claim that? Hawking? What do you mean "exactly the same"? Why is that relevant?
Hawking did not claim realities from different models are the same.

Magnus Anderson claimed the following;
They are 3 different descriptions of one and the same portion of reality.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:03 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:51 am Yes, equally valid realities exist, but he did not claim they are exactly the same.
Who didn't claim that? Hawking? What do you mean "exactly the same"? Why is that relevant?
Hawking did not claim realities from different models are the same.
And why are you saying that?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:03 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:59 am

Who didn't claim that? Hawking? What do you mean "exactly the same"? Why is that relevant?
Hawking did not claim realities from different models are the same.
And why are you saying that?
It is obvious different models will produce different model-dependent-reality, that is why it called model-dependent-realism.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:07 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:03 am
Hawking did not claim realities from different models are the same.
And why are you saying that?
It is obvious different models will produce different model-dependent-reality, that is why it called model-dependent-realism.
You're saying this stuff like it's some argument against realism. You aren't making it clear how it's an argument against realism.

What's wrong with a realist accepting different levels of description of a goat?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:07 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:04 am
And why are you saying that?
It is obvious different models will produce different model-dependent-reality, that is why it called model-dependent-realism.
You're saying this stuff like it's some argument against realism. You aren't making it clear how it's an argument against realism.

What's wrong with a realist accepting different levels of description of a goat?
A realist in the above case will accept 3 different level description of a goat and insist there is only ONE real independent goat out there.

An anti-realist will accept there are 3 different level of description but do not agree there is only ONE real independent goat out there,
rather there are 3 different real-goats dependent on the different human-based models that is used.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Seems like you're just making stuff up again and ascribing it to realists.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:25 am Seems like you're just making stuff up again and ascribing it to realists.
That is what Magnus Anderson is claiming as a realist.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Wait, you think there are 3 different goats? What?
Post Reply