Not Mind-Independent not = Mind-Dependent

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have gone through this issue with PH a million times but he conveniently forget and keep bring up the issue.
This thread will be an easy reference whenever I need to bring up the reminder.

While we wait for ever for that, let's draw the obvious conclusion: the idea that reality is or could be 'mind-dependent' - that the existence of the universe depends on humans/human brains - is utterly incoherent.

I have gone through the "if not mind-independent, then mind-dependent" thingy a million times.
I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

Philosophical Realism [yours] claims that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Those who are against, i.e. ANTI-Philosophical_Realism [not mind-independent] do not agree that things are absolutely mind-independent, but somehow related & linked [entangled, connected] to the human conditions [human mind and body].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
I will dig up the past times I have explained this and post it here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
There is a difference between;
1. Absolute mind-independence - Philosophical Realism

2. Relative mind-independence - Empirical Realism

[Atla]

Philosophical Realism [yours] claims that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

English please

Philosophical realism is a broad and complex philosophical position that asserts the existence of an external reality independent of human minds. However, the claim of absolute mind-independence can vary depending on the specific form of realism being discussed. There are various types of philosophical realism, and each may have different nuances regarding the relationship between reality and the mind.

Classical realism, for example, asserts that the external world exists independently of our minds and is fundamentally the same for all observers. It posits that objects, properties, and relationships exist objectively and exist regardless of whether anyone is perceiving them.

On the other hand, critical realism is a more nuanced version of realism that acknowledges the existence of a mind-independent reality but also recognizes that our perceptions and understanding of reality are mediated by our cognitive processes and conceptual frameworks. In this sense, it doesn't claim absolute mind-independence but rather acknowledges the role of the mind in interpreting and understanding reality.

It's essential to note that some realists might argue for a form of realism that is closer to absolute mind-independence, while others might emphasize the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of reality. As with many philosophical positions, the specifics can be subject to ongoing debate and interpretation.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

So, you will be accused of that. IOW the problem with calling it mind-dependent is that people will make a presumably false accusation then. Or really they will say it means X, which it doesn't mean.

What does mind-dependence mean, then?

In terms of the universe. It doesn't mean that the universe came about because of an individual mind or collective minds, since it is clear from above that that would be a mistaken accusation. OK.

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe. Not that minds created the realist universe. IOW a mind created galaxies and thigns unseen and the Big Bang. IOW minds didn't create an external universe, what a realist thinks of as a mind independing set of things that started before humans and will continue after humans and other sentient life forms if they die out. And parts of it haven't be experienced by humans.

It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

Things only exist when experienced in your model, or?

What is the universe in your non-realist model? A collection of experiencings? Or......

And to be clear. I mean this as exploratory. I think your non-realism and other non-realisms (unles they are merely epistemological) come or entail a model of the universe or reality and that this is different from the realist one. You've been clear that there is no mind independent reality. So, what is that kind of universe like. I think we can all sketch the scientific realist model, with the Big Bang perhaps stuff before that in different models. A universe, a vast space with many things in it, existing for a long time before minds arose and so on. It's all there, now and was there but different in the past. The planet we just discovered last week in some solar system far away, well that was there for a long time before we noticed it. So there's this kind of stable space filled with stuff.

But what's your universe/reality like. I think it would be very different from that. So, what is your model, given your non-realism.

[Skepdick]

<blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

But "nature" and "the universe" are semantically synonymous and are therefore interchangeable in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

So what the hell do you mean when you talk about "the nature of the universe" e.g the nature of nature ?!?

It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

... same goes for "reality" and "universe". They are interchangeable.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

What the fuck are you talking about when you turn your ontological nouns into adjectives; or when you mix up terminology from different ontological theories?

[Atla]

<blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

But "nature" and "the universe" are semantically synonymous and are therefore interchangeable in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

So what the hell do you mean when you talk about "the nature of the universe" e.g the nature of nature ?!?

It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

... same goes for "reality" and "universe". They are interchangeable.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

What the fuck are you talking about when you turn your ontological nouns into adjectives; or when you mix up terminology from different ontological theories?

Humans who have all their cognitive functions working, can process context, meaning. That's not something you can imagine. A word like "nature" can have multiple meanings, and it is automatically understood by these humans, which meaning of "nature" was used. Unless there was a misunderstanding, but this one with "nature" was pretty clear-cut.

[Skepdick]

Humans who have all their cognitive functions working, can process context, meaning. That's not something you can imagine. A word like "nature" can have multiple meanings, and it is automatically understood by these humans, which meaning of "nature" was used. Unless there was a misunderstanding, but this one with "nature" was pretty clear-cut.

Ahhh, the irony. If you only understand it "automatically" then you are nothing more than an automaton.

If you insist otherwise then go ahead and explain (non-automatically) what "The nature of the universe." means.

[Iwannaplato]

<blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

But "nature" and "the universe" are semantically synonymous and are therefore interchangeable in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

So what the hell do you mean when you talk about "the nature of the universe" e.g the nature of nature ?!?

It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

... same goes for "reality" and "universe". They are interchangeable.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

What the fuck are you talking about when you turn your ontological nouns into adjectives; or when you mix up terminology from different ontological theories?

I'm curious about how VA views something. So I asked him about it in a few different ways.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

No, he thinks the realist model is wrong. So, I'm asking him about his model. I don't think he has laid out this before. So, I'm asking.

I know this is outrageous and should be treated as some horrible thesis I am putting forward. I'm sure what I wrote goes against many of your theist-ish rules.

[Skepdick]

<blah blah blah>

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe.

<blah blah blah>

But "nature" and "the universe" are semantically synonymous and are therefore interchangeable in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the physical world or universe.

So what the hell do you mean when you talk about "the nature of the universe" e.g the nature of nature ?!?

It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

... same goes for "reality" and "universe". They are interchangeable.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

What the fuck are you talking about when you turn your ontological nouns into adjectives; or when you mix up terminology from different ontological theories?

I'm curious about how VA views something. So I asked him about it in a few different ways.

His universal model of the universe is wrong?
His realist model of reality is wrong?

No, he thinks the realist model is wrong. So, I'm asking him about his model. I don't think he has laid out this before. So, I'm asking.

I know this is outrageous and should be treated as some horrible thesis I am putting forward. I'm sure what I wrote goes against many of your theist-ish rules.

But you are asking loaded questions with baked in realist pre-suppositions that you continuously refuse to make explicit.

So if you goal is (as you claim) genuine understanding surely you should allow for the possibility that your presuppositions are mistaken and suspend them?

From where I am looking your commitment to your presuppositions makes you seem disohnest about your intentions.

[Atla]

If you only understand it "automatically" then you are nothing more than an automaton.

This is another example of not being able to comprehend context, meaning.

[Skepdick]

If you only understand it "automatically" then you are nothing more than an automaton.

This is another example of not being able to comprehend context, meaning.

This is another example of Atla being unable to do non-automatic things.

Like contexualising his own words.

Are you sure you aren't a chatbot?

The irony...

[Veritas Aequitas]

And, meanwhile, talk of reality being 'not mind-independent' is incoherent. In what way is the tree in my garden not independent from human brains?

I wonder what it will take for you to recognise that your argument is bollocks?

Again, your knowledge and thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
Don't be hasty and arrogant to think my argument is bollocks when in reality your thinking and mind is boll-blocked.

Here is crude example.

Note the individual pando pines in the above image.
IF a pando-pine-tree [Y] is given self-consciousness, he will perceive the next and next pando pines as absolutely mind-independent from his mind.
But if that individual pine is knowledge, he will realize he is in fact connected via the root system to all other pando-pines around him.
As such, pando-pine-tree [Y] is not mind-independent but somehow related, connected, entangled with all the other pando-pine-treee.

• Pando (Latin for "I spread")[1] is a clonal organism representing an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). It was identified as a single living organism because its parts possess identical genetic markers[2] and it is assumed to have a massive interconnected underground root system.
  Pando occupies 108 acres (43.6 ha) and is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000 tonnes (6,000,000 kg),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Similarly, individual humans are like the pando-pines but we are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality.
The problem is this relation is not easy to grasp because the majority are too primal and hard cored wired with a consciousness of absolute mind-independence towards philosophical realism. Note,

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

[Atla]

And, meanwhile, talk of reality being 'not mind-independent' is incoherent. In what way is the tree in my garden not independent from human brains?

I wonder what it will take for you to recognise that your argument is bollocks?

Again, your knowledge and thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
Don't be hasty and arrogant to think my argument is bollocks when in reality your thinking and mind is boll-blocked.

Here is crude example.

Note the individual pando pines in the above image.
IF a pando-pine-tree [Y] is given self-consciousness, he will perceive the next and next pando pines as absolutely mind-independent from his mind.
But if that individual pine is knowledge, he will realize he is in fact connected via the root system to all other pando-pines around him.
As such, pando-pine-tree [Y] is not mind-independent but somehow related, connected, entangled with all the other pando-pine-treee.

• Pando (Latin for "I spread")[1] is a clonal organism representing an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). It was identified as a single living organism because its parts possess identical genetic markers[2] and it is assumed to have a massive interconnected underground root system.
  Pando occupies 108 acres (43.6 ha) and is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000 tonnes (6,000,000 kg),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Similarly, individual humans are like the pando-pines but we are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality.
The problem is this relation is not easy to grasp because the majority are too primal and hard cored wired with a consciousness of absolute mind-independence towards philosophical realism. Note,

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

But most trees don't have their roots connected. Just as most humans don't share a connection equivalent to the Pando tree's connection. LOL.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

So, you will be accused of that. IOW the problem with calling it mind-dependent is that people will make a presumably false accusation then. Or really they will say it means X, which it doesn't mean.

What does mind-dependence mean, then?

In terms of the universe. It doesn't mean that the universe came about because of an individual mind or collective minds, since it is clear from above that that would be a mistaken accusation. OK.

But it should mean something about the nature of the universe. Not that minds created the realist universe. IOW a mind created galaxies and thigns unseen and the Big Bang. IOW minds didn't create an external universe, what a realist thinks of as a mind independing set of things that started before humans and will continue after humans and other sentient life forms if they die out. And parts of it haven't be experienced by humans.

It seems to me to your kind of non-realist that model of the universe is wrong.

Things only exist when experienced in your model, or?

What is the universe in your non-realist model? A collection of experiencings? Or......

And to be clear. I mean this as exploratory. I think your non-realism and other non-realisms (unles they are merely epistemological) come or entail a model of the universe or reality and that this is different from the realist one. You've been clear that there is no mind independent reality. So, what is that kind of universe like. I think we can all sketch the scientific realist model, with the Big Bang perhaps stuff before that in different models. A universe, a vast space with many things in it, existing for a long time before minds arose and so on. It's all there, now and was there but different in the past. The planet we just discovered last week in some solar system far away, well that was there for a long time before we noticed it. So there's this kind of stable space filled with stuff.

But what's your universe/reality like. I think it would be very different from that. So, what is your model, given your non-realism.

IWP:You've been clear that there is no mind independent reality.
Not absolutely.
I have already stated many times I adopts Empirical Realism [mind-independence] which is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [not mind-independent].

Within Empirical Realism, what is empirical [the apple out there] is independent of my mind.
Empirical Realism avoids solipsism, i.e. there are other empirical minds.
With reference to empirical realism, the Big Bang, the moon, the universes did exist prior to human existence.

But empirical realism in another higher perspective is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism which is NOT mind-independent.
The point is the hypothesis->theory of "Big Bang, the moon, the universes did exist prior to human existence" is conditioned within the human conditions.
To enable the emergence and realization of the above, the variable of empirical time, space are inevitably involved. Since time and space do not exist absolutely but are not-mind-independent, whatever the conclusions of the Big Bang cannot be mind-independent.

There are many ways to explain the above;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Philosophical Realism is an evolutionary default ideologized.
Philosophical Realism [mind-independent reality] has failed to establish what is really real and besides it period-based pros, has contributed to much evil to humanity.
This is why ANTI-philosophical_realism did a 180 degree turn to ground reality on the human conditions [mind and body], e.g. Buddhism, Kantianism, anti-realist-QM such as Hawking model dependent realism.
Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40248
Hawking: My 'Brief History of Time' was Wrong.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39961

and there are many other threads I have raised to support the above points.