Realism Cannot Be Realistic

[The Beast]

I see that your doctrine is putting limitations on your understanding. We had agreed that the experiencer is the spectrum of functions. However, if your doctrine is making you angry then you should deal with that first.

[Spectrum]

I see that your doctrine is putting limitations on your understanding. We had agreed that the experiencer is the spectrum of functions. However, if your doctrine is making you angry then you should deal with that first.

I was merely philosophizing will continue as long as any other parties are interested in the same.

That you are accusing me of being angry [last check my BP and heart rate is very normal] is merely [subminally] reflecting and echoing your own psychological state.

[The Beast]

“will continue…” obviously it did not.
Since your comments of hallucination: I am paying attention at the action/reaction theory to say that a hallucination may see itself reflected as such. If not anger, it may just be a bottom line uncappable and limited by tophi. Microvascular disease of prionic origin will (in the beginning) make attempt at refine Reason, only to resort at one past bottom line of refine reason that could or not be pertaining to present philosophical discourse. It is my understanding that the resulting tophi from prionic evolution may use the refine Reason to hallucinate its own reality. In this case hijacks the spectrum of what is consider refine Reason. Who is the experiencer?

[Spectrum]

“will continue…” obviously it did not.
Since your comments of hallucination: I am paying attention at the action/reaction theory to say that a hallucination may see itself reflected as such. If not anger, it may just be a bottom line uncappable and limited by tophi. Microvascular disease of prionic origin will (in the beginning) make attempt at refine Reason, only to resort at one past bottom line of refine reason that could or not be pertaining to present philosophical discourse. It is my understanding that the resulting tophi from prionic evolution may use the refine Reason to hallucinate its own reality. In this case hijacks the spectrum of what is consider refine Reason. Who is the experiencer?

Note basic reason infers the following;

Perception must include the 'perceiver' and the 'perceived'.
Appearance must include the 'appearance' and "that which appear"
Experience must include the "experiencer" and "that which is experienced".

Who is the experiencer?
Say John pricked his finger with a needle and exclaimed 'ouch'.
Who is the experiencer? The answer is obvious.
In this case John is the 'experiencer' of that pain.

From John's POV, he would say;
I am [body, mind and consciousness] the experiencer of that pain.

So the answer 'Who is the experiencer is very simple' as shown above.

What is more philosophical sophisticated from John's POV is 'Who am I - the self?'
According to Hume [and many others] there is nothing ontological [permanent and independent] to the self, i.e. there is no substance to the self. The self is just a bundle of perceptions and nothing else.

Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.

I suggest you try to understand [not to agree] Hume views then argue why Hume is wrong.

[The Beast]

“Realism in not very realistic”
Your reasoning is solid. However, there is no categories. What we perceived as an apple is the reception of an expression that is recognized and given a name. A strip of DNA or RNA that can be reproduced by the refine Reason. So, what exist is an expression, a receptor and a chemical reaction. Many new receptors to receive the same expression might enhance the parameters of the chemical reactions. The chemical reactions existed before there were receptors. The chemical reactions are based on atomic composition. We have tried to change that as well. The question about the experiencer is one of the bottom line. Since it is a spectrum going from Timeless to Eternity and whether it resides in the expression or in the receptor or in both since they are made of the same substance or in none (abstract). Maybe a pie chart.

[Dark Matter]

Interesting. The OP rewords what I've been hammered for in the past: that the subject/object dichotomy implies and presupposes a Reality that transcends yet includes both.

[Spectrum]

“Realism in not very realistic”
Your reasoning is solid. However, there is no categories. What we perceived as an apple is the reception of an expression that is recognized and given a name. A strip of DNA or RNA that can be reproduced by the refine Reason. So, what exist is an expression, a receptor and a chemical reaction. Many new receptors to receive the same expression might enhance the parameters of the chemical reactions. The chemical reactions existed before there were receptors. The chemical reactions are based on atomic composition. We have tried to change that as well. The question about the experiencer is one of the bottom line. Since it is a spectrum going from Timeless to Eternity and whether it resides in the expression or in the receptor or in both since they are made of the same substance or in none (abstract). Maybe a pie chart.

Are you familiar with Escher's Hands?



The chemical reactions existed before there were receptors.
This is logic and linguistic but it is not reality.
Reality is something like Escher's hand they emerge spontaneously not one before or after the other.

What you are caught up with, even it is logical, it actually your psychology. Note Hume's Problem of Induction of customs and habits that the Sun will rise tomorrow [so logical and obvious] is in reality never a certainty.

It is not easy to untangle that psychological hold [of the experiencer] which is useful but it is not necessary realistic.
Realism Cannot Be Realistic

[The Beast]

Simplicity is not the whole truth. I will take rational. In the old days simplicity will point to the door of the underground guarded by the two demons Gant and Krysor. They are just names to children but to me they are anger and ignorance. At a distance, the demons look big but I have reduced them to the size of a careless paragraph and dismiss them with my will. Long ago, I told myself of limitations as I tried to comprehend the complexity of the olfactory system outlined by a Nobel prize winner and name I forgot. In all, it is the simplicity of anyone walking in the darkness casted by the big shadows of those who dare. Do you feel the big shadow smelling in the darkness of your thought to the essence of which he opens the door.

[Razblo]

Is one's 'personal' perceptions even 'real'? It could be that 80% of our experience is generated in the brain. After all, light is not required in order to experience the lit up scenes of dreams while, 'physiogically', it is night and one's eyes are shut.

[Spectrum]

Is one's 'personal' perceptions even 'real'? It could be that 80% of our experience is generated in the brain. After all, light is not required in order to experience the lit up scenes of dreams while, 'physiogically', it is night and one's eyes are shut.

Here are the philosophical facts;

• (human brain-mind) <gap of waves> {independent external world}

Actually 100% of our experience is generated in the human brain and mind via waves 'emitted' and triggering the sense organs.

There is supposed to be an independent external world to the human body, brain and mind. The only means of connection between the external world and the human brain and mind are the emitted waves that trigger the various sense organs and other cognitive faculties to general what is a representation [perceptions and cognition] of the external independent world.

As you have stated,
"After all, light is not required in order to experience the lit up scenes of dreams while, 'physiogically', it is night and one's eyes are shut."

Philosophical Realism claims there is real external world out there and is perceivable by our cognition through the sense organs.

But as I had argued, the only reality we can infer from outside our brain and mind are merely waves.

At times there are contradiction in our perception of the external world. Waves from the same object could trigger different perceptions, e.g. the eye interpret X while touch interpret Y i.e. opposite of X. e.g. the illusion of the convex and concave mask and other illusions.

Point is human will never ever know what is the real external world.
This is why I claim Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory, i.e. 'Realism Cannot Be Realistic'

To understand what is Realistic we have to use more effective philosophical theories, e.g. Transcendental Realism and Empirical Idealism re Kant.

[Razblo]

Is one's 'personal' perceptions even 'real'? It could be that 80% of our experience is generated in the brain. After all, light is not required in order to experience the lit up scenes of dreams while, 'physiogically', it is night and one's eyes are shut.

Here are the philosophical facts;

• (human brain-mind) <gap of waves> {independent external world}

Actually 100% of our experience is generated in the human brain and mind via waves 'emitted' and triggering the sense organs.

There is supposed to be an independent external world to the human body, brain and mind. The only means of connection between the external world and the human brain and mind are the emitted waves that trigger the various sense organs and other cognitive faculties to general what is a representation [perceptions and cognition] of the external independent world.

As you have stated,
"After all, light is not required in order to experience the lit up scenes of dreams while, 'physiogically', it is night and one's eyes are shut."

Philosophical Realism claims there is real external world out there and is perceivable by our cognition through the sense organs.

But as I had argued, the only reality we can infer from outside our brain and mind are merely waves.

At times there are contradiction in our perception of the external world. Waves from the same object could trigger different perceptions, e.g. the eye interpret X while touch interpret Y i.e. opposite of X. e.g. the illusion of the convex and concave mask and other illusions.

Point is human will never ever know what is the real external world.
This is why I claim Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory, i.e. 'Realism Cannot Be Realistic'

To understand what is Realistic we have to use more effective philosophical theories, e.g. Transcendental Realism and Empirical Idealism re Kant.

Yeah. This is a pretty good explanation of the inherently unexplainable. Given we dream, therefore see/experience sunlight that is not actually there, then I imagine you would agree that experience during non-sleep is just yet another level of dream, yes? So this is a particular form of hallucination, this life and death?

As for these 'waves' supposedly of the 'external world' (apparently 'outside our brain'), what 'waves' are producing sleep dream experiences given the source 'waves' for them are either not 'external' or wholly non existent?

I think we need to redefine the outer boundary of this 'brain'. It makes even less sense to define a brain's boundary to that of skin (over skull/body) with consideration to 'waves' as 'external' when factoring in sleep dreams due to no apparent 'external world' of 'waves' during our sleep. We therefore have to also question this concept of 'external'.

[-1-]

Can realims be realistic?

No, the terms suggest incongruency. Realistic is a quality of explanations, depictions, expectations. Realism is a philosopical direction.

Can a philosophical direction be an explanation, expectation? No, its tenets or assumptions or arguments can, but the direction is not an action or a statement, it is a collective of methodology, methods (and sometimes Methodists), and claims and premisses.

[Londoner]

Philosophical Realism claims there is real external world out there and is perceivable by our cognition through the sense organs.

If it was that crude, (naive realism) nobody would bother about it.

Realism simply holds that there is a universe outside our own heads; it does not follow that our ideas of that universe arising from perception correspond to that universe. It contrasts with the view that there is nothing except our own consciousness.

That our consciousness of the universe is not a direct representation of the universe does not rule out the possibility of knowledge. We may not know the things in themselves, but our knowledge of things - as they appear to us - can be organised in a way that better reflects their relationship to each other and to us. To put it crudely, I do not think what I see as red things are - in themselves - red, on the other hand I can have an understanding of the circumstances in which 'seeing red' occurs, and some understandings can be better than others. Phenomena are not those things-in-themselves, but they still have a regularity that we can come to know.

If we do not take that view then there are problems. For example, suppose we take the view that everything; our perceptions, our model of the relationship between those perceptions and all the rest arise only from our own brains, that would still be a form of realism, because we would still have this external thing - the brain - that is the cause of our internal mental life. If there is nothing but ideas - then there is nothing but ideas! No brains! Our thoughts (literally) emanate from nothing.

So pure idealism, the idea that there are only thoughts, goes beyond solipsism. In practice, it tends to lead towards some sort of religious sounding idea: Yes, there are only thoughts, but thoughts are anchored in a sort of thought-reality, there is a meta-thought. They arise from God (who is not material), or are representations of some other sort of metaphysical force, 'The Will' or suchlike.

[Razblo]

Philosophical Realism claims there is real external world out there and is perceivable by our cognition through the sense organs.

If it was that crude, (naive realism) nobody would bother about it.

Realism simply holds that there is a universe outside our own heads; it does not follow that our ideas of that universe arising from perception correspond to that universe. It contrasts with the view that there is nothing except our own consciousness.

That our consciousness of the universe is not a direct representation of the universe does not rule out the possibility of knowledge. We may not know the things in themselves, but our knowledge of things - as they appear to us - can be organised in a way that better reflects their relationship to each other and to us. To put it crudely, I do not think what I see as red things are - in themselves - red, on the other hand I can have an understanding of the circumstances in which 'seeing red' occurs, and some understandings can be better than others. Phenomena are not those things-in-themselves, but they still have a regularity that we can come to know.

If we do not take that view then there are problems. For example, suppose we take the view that everything; our perceptions, our model of the relationship between those perceptions and all the rest arise only from our own brains, that would still be a form of realism, because we would still have this external thing - the brain - that is the cause of our internal mental life. If there is nothing but ideas - then there is nothing but ideas! No brains! Our thoughts (literally) emanate from nothing.

So pure idealism, the idea that there are only thoughts, goes beyond solipsism. In practice, it tends to lead towards some sort of religious sounding idea: Yes, there are only thoughts, but thoughts are anchored in a sort of thought-reality, there is a meta-thought. They arise from God (who is not material), or are representations of some other sort of metaphysical force, 'The Will' or suchlike.

"That our consciousness of the universe is not a direct representation of the universe does not rule out the possibility of knowledge."

Care to define universe? The so-called 'universe' can only be what arises in consciousness. Are you suggesting an altogether other, but 'real', universe external to or outside consciousness?

If so, please define it. I cannot see how a concept of a universe other than what is experienced is anything other than thoughts arising in consciousness.

[Londoner]

Care to define universe? The so-called 'universe' can only be what arises in consciousness. Are you suggesting an altogether other, but 'real', universe external to or outside consciousness?

If so, please define it. I cannot see how a concept of a universe other than what is experienced is anything other than thoughts arising in consciousness.

The word 'universe' would have two possible meanings. There would be 'universe' as it might be in itself, and 'universe' as it appears to us. Plainly, we would only have access to the second but we may infer the first.

The reason we might infer the first is that otherwise the second, the universe as it appears to us, would arise from nothing at all...except this mysterious entity 'consciousness'. This consciousness is a puzzling thing: 'consciousness' must itself be a thought (since there is only thought) yet it is also the thing from which thoughts 'arise'.