Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:31 pm Because if you, for example, deduced the existence of other minds, using an FSK, then that is a realist activity.
No it isn't.

According to realists there are at least two categories of stuff, right? Minds (N.B plural not singular) and real stuff.

When I am experiencing a mind I am not experiencing real stuff. So what makes it a "realist activity"?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:27 am
Edited to make it clearer;
  • 1. P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
    2. As such, other minds are independent of one's mind.

    3. But, anti-p-realists proved the idea of mind-independence is illusory.
    4. So, other minds which are independent of one's mind [2, 3] are illusory.
    5. As such to the p-realist, only one's mind [p-realist’s] is real, the other external minds are illusory [4].

    6. Solipsism claims only one’s mind is real
    Therefore the P-Realists are solipsistic! [5,6]

Views?
The fact that you have to use a premise that realists don't even agree with is sufficient to show that your conclusion doesn't follow from realist beliefs (I believe iwannaplato made a similar observation). This format of argumentation is pretty much nonsensical.
P-realists driven by an evolutionary default is dogmatic to avoid cognitive dissonances.

The point is I have provided justifications why p-realists' philosophical realism is not realistic why it is solipsistic [as defined]; so, the p-realists will instantly reject whatever the anti-realists' views without even understanding [not necessary agree with] it.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Note, philosophical realism begs the question,
viewtopic.php?p=647637#p647637

So far, no p-realist has provided any justification why their mind-independent reality is real.
Show me the justifications if you have any?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:49 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:31 pm Because if you, for example, deduced the existence of other minds, using an FSK, then that is a realist activity.
No it isn't.

According to realists there are at least two categories of stuff, right? Minds (N.B plural not singular) and real stuff.

When I am experiencing a mind I am not experiencing real stuff. So what makes it a "realist activity"?
Philosophical Realism [p-realists] insist all things [other-minds] are mind-independent of the observer.

Anti-realists [Kantian] infer based on a human-based FSK*, the existence of other-minds.
Because it is human-based FSK* [psychology, neuroscience, etc.], what follows cannot be mind-independent, thus not as per philosophical realism.

* human-based FSK imply the involvement of the mind and body, i.e. embodied mind.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:39 am
The point is I have provided justifications why p-realists' philosophical realism is not realistic why it is solipsistic [as defined]; so, the p-realists will instantly reject whatever the anti-realists' views without even understanding [not necessary agree with] it.
Your justification that it's solipsistic is clearly and obviously fallacious, to the point that the argument is an extremely silly joke. If you want to argue that realism is incorrect, good, fine, do that, but the joke of the op in this thread has come and gone. We've all had our laugh about your fallacious argument, let's move on.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:39 am
The point is I have provided justifications why p-realists' philosophical realism is not realistic why it is solipsistic [as defined]; so, the p-realists will instantly reject whatever the anti-realists' views without even understanding [not necessary agree with] it.
Your justification that it's solipsistic is clearly and obviously fallacious, to the point that the argument is an extremely silly joke. If you want to argue that realism is incorrect, good, fine, do that, but the joke of the op in this thread has come and gone. We've all had our laugh about your fallacious argument, let's move on.
There is nothing wrong with the conclusion.

Naive realism assumes immediate access to the reality - this is equivalent to having direct access to a solipsistic mind; or in general - immediate access to whatever ontology you subscribe to.

In that sense naive realism is equivalent to solipsism.

It completely disregards how communication/information flow works.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:19 am Philosophical Realism [p-realists] insist all things [other-minds] are mind-independent of the observer.
Yes, when they are not being perceived by minds.
Anti-realists [Kantian] infer based on a human-based FSK*, the existence of other-minds.
Infer. And there it is. They infer it. Realists can infer also. They can infer that given similar physiologies found in the biological sciences and similar behavior other humans also have mnds - that is, subjective experiencing.

Realists infer the existence of other minds.

If antirealists are inferring the existence of other minds, what is wrong with realists inferring that the bedroom they just left that has no one in it continues to exist. That it is there EVEN THOUGH it is not being perceived. Just as the other minds of other people are there even though they are not perceived? It is the same process, but in your antirealism it is precisely the same process, just reserved for one (extremely important) thing/process: inferring the existence other minds.

You then argue that because these other minds are inferred by a human FSK they are not independent. But the problem with that is then a realist can say that there is a stable reality, even when no one is looking at it, because it is part of a human FSK.

IOW what if you face a realist who says, sure, when I talk about something, in that sense it is not independent from my mind. But the moon and empty rooms and unihabited island continue to exist when no one is looking at them.
So, they grant that what they are talking about and concluding is something that is part of the verbiage of FSKs BUT also say they continue to exist when not perceived.

IOW when antirealists, at least of the kind you describe yourself to be, infer one part of what they do not perceive of a stable independent thing/process (other minds) they are doing what realists do for many things/processes.

The antirealist infers that other minds continue to exist when the antirealist is not around. Why can't realists do that for others things?

And then, leaving the realist antirealist contrast (they aren't the only players in the game and each of them has many subcateories), can we only infer the existence of other minds?
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:39 am
The point is I have provided justifications why p-realists' philosophical realism is not realistic why it is solipsistic [as defined]; so, the p-realists will instantly reject whatever the anti-realists' views without even understanding [not necessary agree with] it.
Your justification that it's solipsistic is clearly and obviously fallacious, to the point that the argument is an extremely silly joke. If you want to argue that realism is incorrect, good, fine, do that, but the joke of the op in this thread has come and gone. We've all had our laugh about your fallacious argument, let's move on.
I believe you are mistaken or perhaps my argument was not clear.

Seriously,
I have justified why p-realism is illusory.

I have also justified why p-realism is solipsistic [as defined] and p-realists are ignorant of it.

Put it another way,

1. P-realism claims reality is independent of mind.
2. As such, reality is independent of the p-realists' mind.
3. P-realists has failed to prove what is independent of their mind is really real.
4. P-realists have not deny their minds are real.
5. As such, the only real mind to the p-realists are their minds.
6. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist.
7. Therefore p-realists are solipsistic [5,6].

The above argument do not mix in my anti-philosophical-realist position where I have justified why the p-realists claim is illusory to reinforce 3 above.

Thus my OP conclusion stand.
For intellectual sake, welcome your critique if you really think it is fallacious, I won't give up until I am convinced it is really fallacious.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

If p-realists were to infer from any FSK which by default is human-based [including body & mind],
then, it follows, the ultimate inference CANNOT be mind-independent [as the p-realists insist].
As I had stated, the idea of mind-independence is original an evolutionary default as a 'deception' to facilitate basic survival and not meant to be something that is really real and true.

However, the p-realists adopted and clung to this idea of mind-independence as an ideological ism, i.e. philosophical realism; being naturally the majority, they threw their weight around to the extreme of killing those who do not agree with their ideology of philosophical realism.
This is evident by the extensive intellectual violence [explicit or subtle] from philosophical realists in philosophical forums [e.g. here] and other social arena.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:25 am If p-realists were to infer from any FSK which by default is human-based [including body & mind],
then, it follows, the ultimate inference CANNOT be mind-independent [as the p-realists insist].
Problems that realists have do not eliminate problems antirealists have. You are focusing on two issues. The antirealist who believes in other minds allows inferences of something not perceived directly to both exist AND continue to exist when that particular antirealist's mind.

IOW you, VA, allow yourself to believe in other minds. Not only do they exist when you are not around - when Sally walks out of the room you are in - to an empty room Sally's body and mind continue to exist.

You infer the persistance of something that YOU do not perceive anymore and in fact never did. You only perceived body.

Why couldn't another antirealist, for example, conclude the same thing about the moon, or a cat, or a rock on the far side of the moon.

You have characterized antirealism as not allowing the unperceivable existence. But that is not the case.

Forget realists for a moment. Let's just look at antirealists. If the individual antirealist, you, for example, can infer the continued existence AND persistance of other minds, minds you do not perceive, why can't they infer the persistance of other things/processes? And assert that they continue to exist when they, as individual antirealists do not perceive them?

It's important, I think, not to assume a kind of bird's eye, God's eye view.

You wake up as an antirealist. Get out of bed. Encounter things and people. In this experiencing you allow yourself to infer somethings and not others. That's the focus.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:38 am The antirealist who believes in other minds allows inferences of something not perceived directly to both exist AND continue to exist...
That's a cute framing.

You are using "exist" with a whole lot of philosophical/onto-theological baggage.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:38 am Not only do they exist when you are not around - when Sally walks out of the room you are in - to an empty room Sally's body and mind continue to exist.
Exist how?

For all I know Sally is just another hallucination of my mind.
For all I know you are just aother voice.

For all I know my mind is well-compartmentalized so that all the diferent personas/identities get their own room. Maybe Flannel Jesus is your alter ego? So I will put you in the same mental room. It's just one of many possible taxonomies.

All of the "problems" you keep pointing out are only problems if you want them to be problems.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Anti-realists do accept the beliefs other minds exist when no one is "looking" at them.

But, anti-realists [nb: Kantian] believe in the various perspectives of reality, i.e. common-sense, conventional sense empirical reality, ultimate anti-philosophical-realism [not mind-independent].
Whilst anti-realists do use terms with the 'ism' suffix, they do not cling to any of the above perspectives of reality as an ideological 'ism' dogmatically in surrendering to the evolutionary default.

Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] like all humans are embedded with the evolutionary default of externality and mind-independence which is necessary for basic survival, but [as stated above] they do not cling to any of the above perspectives of reality as an ideological 'ism' dogmatically in surrendering to the evolutionary default.

As such, in the basic common conventional sense of reality, the Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] do not insist when they turn their back to the oncoming train on the track they are standing on, the unobserved oncoming train do not exist independent of mind.

Whatever perspective of reality the anti-p-realist accept, the ultimate reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK, thus it follows, ultimately there CANNOT be an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Because the Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] do not subscribe or be dogmatic on externality and mind-independence as an ideology [due to psychological weaknesses within] they are able to switch to a more refine perspective of reality whereby reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent as the dogmatic p-realist insist upon ideologically.
This is like seeing the other of the 2 cubes in the Necker Cube Exercise, whereas the p-realist can only see 1 cube and never be able to cognize the 2nd cube.

Because the Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] has to option to switch between different perspectives of reality, they are able break off from the chains of p-realism to contribute to a greater state of well-being and progress of humanity, e.g. potentially from Buddhism's 'nothingness' QM non-local-realism, etc.

Note this perspective of reality which Einstein the hardcore p-realist rejected;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
Since the ideas that Einstein rejected has won the 2023 Nobel Prize.

My point;
Anti-realists do accept the beliefs other minds exist when no one is "looking" at them.
However, for pragmatic reasons, anti-p-realists do not cling to the above dogmatically as an ideological 'ism'.
Anti-p-realists believe there are other perspectives of reality subject to their specific human-based FSK.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:18 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:39 am
The point is I have provided justifications why p-realists' philosophical realism is not realistic why it is solipsistic [as defined]; so, the p-realists will instantly reject whatever the anti-realists' views without even understanding [not necessary agree with] it.
Your justification that it's solipsistic is clearly and obviously fallacious, to the point that the argument is an extremely silly joke. If you want to argue that realism is incorrect, good, fine, do that, but the joke of the op in this thread has come and gone. We've all had our laugh about your fallacious argument, let's move on.
I believe you are mistaken or perhaps my argument was not clear.

Seriously,
I have justified why p-realism is illusory.

I have also justified why p-realism is solipsistic [as defined] and p-realists are ignorant of it.

Put it another way,

1. P-realism claims reality is independent of mind.
2. As such, reality is independent of the p-realists' mind.
3. P-realists has failed to prove what is independent of their mind is really real.
4. P-realists have not deny their minds are real.
5. As such, the only real mind to the p-realists are their minds.
6. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist.
7. Therefore p-realists are solipsistic [5,6].

The above argument do not mix in my anti-philosophical-realist position where I have justified why the p-realists claim is illusory to reinforce 3 above.

Thus my OP conclusion stand.
For intellectual sake, welcome your critique if you really think it is fallacious, I won't give up until I am convinced it is really fallacious.
If you say you can prove realists believe something, and then prove that they believe that thing using premises they don't agree with, then you haven't proven anything at all..

Let me show you. I'll pretend to be a flat earther for a moment, and I'll use an argument that's formulated like your argument.

Round Earthers believe round things are flat.

1. Round Earthers believe the earth is round
2. The earth is flat
3. Therefore, round Earthers believe round and flat are the same thing

It's nonsense, right? And yet it's just like your argument
Wizard22
Posts: 2845
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Wizard22 »

You know these arguments are amateur when they skip-over what Descartes and Leibniz demonstrated.

It's not about what is knowable inasmuch as what is Provable. Logically, the subject must begin with what is existentially un-deniable, that one cannot doubt that one doubts, Cogito Ergo Sum. This is the beginning of what is Rational, Logical, and True. What is "Known" or "Knowable", comes later with the Epistemologists. Kant is the extension of all this. Yes, Subjects are true and real, along with the mental-experience of the Brain/Mind. The brain has evolved, instinctive, logical circuits and functions. These are inherited. IQ is heritable. Some humans have logical circuitry and IQ that others do not. This is why some minds are highly functioning and intelligent, while others are not. This is why 'Education' only goes so far.

Logic is A Priori. If you don't have the logical circuit, then your brain literally and physically cannot 'compute' a distinct Rationality.

I think Berkeley was more apt to "Philosophical Realism" by how sense-data is integrated directly through human senses, to the logical circuits, and how these operate bio-chemically. This led to the realm of Neuroscience, in addition to the branches of Psychology produced from the 20th Century.

These arguments are already 'done', 'finished', 'proven'.

Amateurs need to do their homework...
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Skepdick »

Wizard22 wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:41 am It's not about what is knowable inasmuch as what is Provable.
Logic is subject to GIGO. Garbage in - Garbage out.

You can't prove anything without knowing some rules of inference.
Wizard22 wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:41 am Logically, the subject must begin with what is existentially un-deniable, that one cannot doubt that one doubts, Cogito Ergo Sum.
Cogito Ergo Sum is a hasty generalization fallacy.

Cogito Ergo Cogito is all that's possible without induction.
Wizard22 wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:41 am Logic is A Priori. If you don't have the logical circuit, then your brain literally and physically cannot 'compute' a distinct Rationality.
It's not. The logician is a priori.

If you don't have a logician who computes anything?
Wizard22 wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:41 am Amateurs need to do their homework...
Agreed. Go do your homework.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wizard22
Posts: 2845
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

Post by Wizard22 »

Go listen to the Christian Scholastics and Thomas Aquinas.

Reality is mostly based on Belief/Blind Faith. You don't know what is down the street, to the left. You believe what is real and true. The difference between knowledge and belief is the rationality, logic, and verification required between the two. Different people have different (Higher) standards for belief and trust. Most of "Reality" is implied, inductive, presumed, second or third-hand. People do not generally question their Authorities, their "trusted news sources". People have Confirmation-Bias.

Only Philosophers can square the logical inconsistencies of Normies. Normies don't care, and don't care when they make rational mistakes.

This is why Skepdick cannot understand Descartes.
Post Reply