Morality: Veil of Perception

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thesis: Because the p-realists' ground is illusory, p-realists has no credibility in claiming there are no objective fact and that morality cannot be objective.

Why?

Starting with;
Re: Veil of Perception:
https://youtu.be/hs-jJMTjHoo?t=427

Indirect realism seems to have thrown a veil of perception over our eyes, saying we can never perceive the world as it truly is.
If this is the case how can we ever know for sure that what we are perceiving is what is actually out there and,
Even further how can we be sure there is in fact an external world beyond that veil if we only perceive the sense data.
We never come in direct contact with the external world, how can we be sure that there exists such a thing.
Ultimately it is just our ideas that we perceive the projections on our minds.
Why then should we assume there is a physical world that is creating the ideas rather than take the approach that reality is just a set of mental ideas with no external world.

Direct and Indirect Realism ASSUME there is an external world out there that is mind-independent to the extent, even if there are no humans, whatever is out there still exist.

Question: Why then should we assume there is a mind-independent physical world that is creating the ideas rather than take the approach that reality is just a set of mental ideas with no external world.

The conception of a mind-independent physical world out there is driven by a natural evolutionary default emerged to facilitate basic survival.
The problem as related to Morality is Philosophical Realists [PH & Gang] cling to it dogmatically as an ideology which is uncompromizable.

As an ideology of philosophical realism, the mind-independent reality that is deemed to be very real by p-realists is actually an illusion and it is delusional of them in insisting upon it dogmatically.

The issue of morality, is p-realists grounds on an illusion to deny there are objective moral facts.
viewtopic.php?t=24601

To p-realists, moral elements are based on rightness and wrongness which are mere opinions, beliefs and judgments which are subjective to humans and thus cannot exist as mind-independent facts, i.e. p-realists' version of illusory facts.

The p-realists sense of mind-independent fact is illusory.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Because the p-realists' ground is illusory, p-realists has no credibility in claiming there are no objective fact and that morality cannot be objective.

On the other hand there are real facts [FSK-ed] that are conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most reliable.
Scientific facts that are moral elements when inputted into a credible moral FSK will enable objective moral facts, on that basis, human-based morality is objective.

The human-based scientific FSK deals with the empirically external world.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, its resultant reality cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent [countering philosophical realism mind-independence].

[Atla]

The human-based scientific FSK deals with the empirically external world.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, its resultant reality cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent [countering philosophical realism mind-independence].

It can, by using referents posited outside the human mind. Which is exactly what science does.

[Iwannaplato]

Question: Why then should we assume there is a mind-independent physical world that is creating the ideas rather than take the approach that reality is just a set of mental ideas with no external world.

Why assume there are other minds 'out there'? All you have is sense data. Why assume there are other minds behind your sense data of those 'bodies' that aren't really 'out there'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

When p-realists cling to the natural mode of external as an ideology, they do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs.
They take it that whatever is external [things, living things and humans] to them is supposedly mind-independent.
As such, it is taken that other humans will survive if they are dead, and to the extent, other non-human things will exist even if there are no humans.

The indirect realists claim what they know is the sense-data in their brain, but there is still something mind-independent [existing as it is] out there that is emitting waves to the their brain.

WHY something out there? if there are only sense data as in indirect realism?
This is to avoid and relieve the terrible cognitive dissonance if they deny there nothing mind-independent out there.

Note the basic pure reason, if there are phenomena [things cognized], there must be mind-independent noumena [things by themselves].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science Assumes Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40339

[Flannel Jesus]

Question: Why then should we assume there is a mind-independent physical world that is creating the ideas rather than take the approach that reality is just a set of mental ideas with no external world.

Why assume there are other minds 'out there'? All you have is sense data. Why assume there are other minds behind your sense data of those 'bodies' that aren't really 'out there'?

A puzzle for the ages

[Atla]

When p-realists cling to the natural mode of external as an ideology, they do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs.

??? Why wouldn't they take that into account?

They take it that whatever is external [things, living things and humans] to them is supposedly mind-independent.
As such, it is taken that other humans will survive if they are dead, and to the extent, other non-human things will exist even if there are no humans.

But in truth, the day VA ceases to exist, humanity also ceases to exist (yey)? But then why are you spending so much effort to change humanity's future?

[Harbal]

The same bloody thing over, and over, and over again. He's like a Hamster on a treadwheel.

VA.jpg (24.65 KiB) Viewed 580 times

[Iwannaplato]

When p-realists cling to the natural mode of external as an ideology, they do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs.]

What?! Realists don't think there are other minds out there? Please present some evidence that realists are more prone to solipsism than others.

But you are missing the point. You don't have direct evidence of other minds. You have sense data regarding them. Yet you assume there are other minds. According to your earlier logic, since you assume these other minds they can't be real.

Or do you have direct experience of other minds? Their experiencing. It seems like you think they are experiencing. Do you directly sense their experiencing or do you assume that since they seem like you, they must also experience?

I know you have experiences of their bodies and sounds and speech and so on.

But their experiencing?

[Veritas Aequitas]

When p-realists cling to the natural mode of external as an ideology, they do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs.
They take it that whatever is external [things, living things and humans] to them is supposedly mind-independent.
As such, p-realists deem other humans will survive if they themselves are dead; and to the extent, other non-human things will exist even if there are no humans.

Note the term "ideology" i.e. thinking in ideological terms and dogmatically.

"p-realists do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs."
this is not denying external people do not have minds, but rather in this case, the person is lumped up as a physical living thing which is external to them, without considering the mind or other organs specifically.

[Atla]

"p-realists do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs."
this is not denying external people do not have minds, but rather in this case, the person is lumped up as a physical living thing which is external to them, without considering the mind or other organs specifically.

whaaaaaaat
I think he's really losing it now

[Peter Holmes]

Why should or must perception cast a veil over reality? Why assume reality must be different from what is perceived, or what humans perceive? If humans and hamsters perceive reality differently, do they perceive a different reality?

[Impenitent]

perceptions are unique

"My truth is not your truth" - B. Lee

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

]When p-realists cling to the natural mode of external as an ideology, they do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs.
They take it that whatever is external [things, living things and humans] to them is supposedly mind-independent.
As such, p-realists deem other humans will survive if they themselves are dead; and to the extent, other non-human things will exist even if there are no humans.

OK, but I was asking you about you. Of course realists, nearly unanimously believe in other minds. They don't have a problem with drawing conclusions about things they cannot directly experience.

Note the term "ideology" i.e. thinking in ideological terms and dogmatically.

"p-realists do not take into account there are also other minds out there which are the same as theirs."

Of course they do take this into account.

this is not denying external people do not have minds, but rather in this case, the person is lumped up as a physical living thing which is external to them, without considering the mind or other organs specifically.

This is very unclear so perhaps you can find another way to say it. What I was asking you, an anti-realist, was if you think there are other minds out there, external to you. Given that you cannot experience another person's experiencing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why should or must perception cast a veil over reality?
Why assume reality must be different from what is perceived, or what humans perceive?
If humans and hamsters perceive reality differently, do they perceive a different reality?

The Veil of Perception is only applicable with philosophical realists like you who assumed there is a mind-independent reality or things out there; to the extent, the moon pre-existed human and the moon will exists after humans are extinct.

The point is when P-realists assume there is a X out there independent of the human conditions, there is an instant Reality-Gap between X and the p-realists.
In order to have perception of X, the light-waves has to travel through the medium of the gap plus through the cognitive mechanisms of the perceiver and thereupon cognized as "X".
In addition the image that manifest by the vision organ is upside and has to be processed to the right vertical position.

This Reality-Gap is the Veil of Perception.
There is no guarantee at all that the 'cognized X' is the same as the assumed mind-independent X out there after going through so many cognitive processes.

There are many instances where what is cognized or perceived is not the same as what is external to the person.
For example a piece of rope in the shade is cognized as a real-snake that trigger real fear emotions in the perceiver.
It is undeniable there are many illusions of the senses.
There are also many illusions arising out the intellect, reasoning and pure reason, these are the logical illusions [various fallacies] and the transcendental illusions [e.g. God, Soul, immortality,].

In additions,
one of the critical function of evolution is to generate lies and deceptions to living organism to facilitate their basic survival.

Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what’s really there | Donald Hoffman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SL-j1X ... 82sHoffman

Because of the above vulnerability, anti-philosophical-realists [Kantian] ignore the idea of a mind-independent reality and things as absolute and as an ideology.
Rather anti-philosophical-realists relied on real empirical evidence as ground to determine what is really-real, not absolutely but conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK, of which at present, the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

On this basis, the anti-philosophical-realists [Kantian] avoid the problem associated with the Veil of Perception.

If humans and hamsters perceive reality differently, do they perceive a different reality?

Only God can declare there is an absolute reality.
God is illusory and impossible to exists as real.
There is no absolute reality for humans.

Humans and hamsters [bats, fishes, bacteria] will realize and then perceive different realities as conditioned upon their respective FSR-FSK.
Note there is a realization process before the perceiving process.