Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

Well, from a philosophical perspective, particularly one permitting ontologies that allow for higher or lower modes of being, mental phenomena such as thoughts, intentions, and speculations perform the parallel in reality along with physical objects. To deny their reality simply because they are not exterior, tangible, or measureable by empirical means is to cling to a strict materialist ontology, which is a philosophy and not a verifiable fact.

Further, the events of speculating occur in minds; hence, these minds are in the world. The acceptance of consciousness not as an externality but as an entity in reality would thereby bring the alleged activities of the mind into the realm of reality.

Here I intend only to distinguish the Map and the Territory. Nothing more than that.

I see your point.

However, when we really do not see the territory, can we actually distinguish the two?

And also, trying to distinguish the two while being in a strict materialist ontology seems a bit narrow.

What do you think?

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, from a philosophical perspective, particularly one permitting ontologies that allow for higher or lower modes of being, mental phenomena such as thoughts, intentions, and speculations perform the parallel in reality along with physical objects. To deny their reality simply because they are not exterior, tangible, or measureable by empirical means is to cling to a strict materialist ontology, which is a philosophy and not a verifiable fact.

Further, the events of speculating occur in minds; hence, these minds are in the world. The acceptance of consciousness not as an externality but as an entity in reality would thereby bring the alleged activities of the mind into the realm of reality.

Here I intend only to distinguish the Map and the Territory. Nothing more than that.

I see your point.

However, when we really do not see the territory, can we actually distinguish the two?

And also, trying to distinguish the two while being in a strict materialist ontology seems a bit narrow.

What do you think?

And I see your point too. We can distinguish the two by a thought experiment where all humans are gone. If the subject still exists, it's part of the territory. If it disappears when humanity does, it was part of our maps. That seems to work pretty well, yes?

P.S. I acknowledge no "ontology" in this discussion, materialist or otherwise, I'm just offering my thoughts for your consideration.

[Sy Borg]

Of course this is not a "map and territory issue". Humans indeed cannot avoid hierarchy and structure. All of history shows this. As soon as hierarchies break down, new ones form. For example, when Somalia's government collapsed, gangs took over, imposing their own hierarchies.

[Sushan]

Well, from a philosophical perspective, particularly one permitting ontologies that allow for higher or lower modes of being, mental phenomena such as thoughts, intentions, and speculations perform the parallel in reality along with physical objects. To deny their reality simply because they are not exterior, tangible, or measureable by empirical means is to cling to a strict materialist ontology, which is a philosophy and not a verifiable fact.

Further, the events of speculating occur in minds; hence, these minds are in the world. The acceptance of consciousness not as an externality but as an entity in reality would thereby bring the alleged activities of the mind into the realm of reality.

Here I intend only to distinguish the Map and the Territory. Nothing more than that.

I see your point.

However, when we really do not see the territory, can we actually distinguish the two?

And also, trying to distinguish the two while being in a strict materialist ontology seems a bit narrow.

What do you think?

And I see your point too. We can distinguish the two by a thought experiment where all humans are gone. If the subject still exists, it's part of the territory. If it disappears when humanity does, it was part of our maps. That seems to work pretty well, yes?

P.S. I acknowledge no "ontology" in this discussion, materialist or otherwise, I'm just offering my thoughts for your consideration.

That is an interesting thought experiment. But I wonder if this does not already presume the very ontology I am inviting to question.

Specifically, the experiment seems to rest on the assumption that only that which exists independently of consciousness can be considered real. In other words that reality is entirely mind-independent. In doing so, it implicitly adopts a materialist (or at least objectivist) metaphysics.

Let me offer a counter-thought experiment: imagine a reality composed entirely of minds—no matter, no space. Would we say that nothing is real in such a scenario simply because nothing remains when you subtract minds?

[Good_Egg]

Seems like you're arguing over the use of the label "real" rather than any substantive issue.

Can we not recognise that for a thing or a phenomenon to exist in the objective world is different from it existing in somebody's mind ? Without getting into language-quibbles about how "real" each is ?

[Pattern-chaser]

We can distinguish the two by a thought experiment where all humans are gone. If the subject still exists, it's part of the territory. If it disappears when humanity does, it was part of our maps. That seems to work pretty well, yes?

P.S. I acknowledge no "ontology" in this discussion, materialist or otherwise, I'm just offering my thoughts for your consideration.

That is an interesting thought experiment. But I wonder if this does not already presume the very ontology I am inviting to question.

Specifically, the experiment seems to rest on the assumption that only that which exists independently of consciousness can be considered real. In other words that reality is entirely mind-independent. In doing so, it implicitly adopts a materialist (or at least objectivist) metaphysics.

Let me offer a counter-thought experiment: imagine a reality composed entirely of minds—no matter, no space. Would we say that nothing is real in such a scenario simply because nothing remains when you subtract minds?

Seems like you're arguing over the use of the label "real" rather than any substantive issue.

Can we not recognise that for a thing or a phenomenon to exist in the objective world is different from it existing in somebody's mind ? Without getting into language-quibbles about how "real" each is ?

Metaphysical objectivity has to enter discussions like these, doesn't it? Whatever our perceptions might tell us, as philosophers we are sometimes inclined to wonder about the fundamental nature of Objective Reality — that which exists mind-independently, and so forth. And, whatever it is, this "Objective Reality" is the reference. It's what actually *is*. All else is supposition, speculation or imagination.

So it does matter what's "real" and what isn't (or may not be). If this is "materialist", then so be it. I just think it's (philosophical) common sense. So now we move to the question, "imagine a reality composed entirely of minds—no matter, no space". Interesting.

What is "real" in such a scenario? In my view — and it's my opinion, nothing more — the minds are real. The thoughts that cross those minds are real. The connections between these minds, or the communication they might share, those are real too. Aren't they?

[Sushan]

Of course this is not a "map and territory issue". Humans indeed cannot avoid hierarchy and structure. All of history shows this. As soon as hierarchies break down, new ones form. For example, when Somalia's government collapsed, gangs took over, imposing their own hierarchies.

Humans are greedy for power, but some are borne to lead while some are happy to follow. So hierarchies are formed, challenged, prevailed or taken down, and new ones formed, and the cycle is repeated.

[Sushan]

Seems like you're arguing over the use of the label "real" rather than any substantive issue.

Can we not recognise that for a thing or a phenomenon to exist in the objective world is different from it existing in somebody's mind ? Without getting into language-quibbles about how "real" each is ?

Yes, we can understand the difference. But the issue is differentiating what is exactly present in the physical objective world, and what we perceive or identify when these physically present objects go through our mind's eye.

As an example, are colours real? Colour is a beautiful phenomena of light reflection that we experience. So does that mean the world we see is colourless? I think defining terms and coming to common grounds on meanings of words is quite important for philosophical discussions.

[Sy Borg]

Of course this is not a "map and territory issue". Humans indeed cannot avoid hierarchy and structure. All of history shows this. As soon as hierarchies break down, new ones form. For example, when Somalia's government collapsed, gangs took over, imposing their own hierarchies.

Humans are greedy for power, but some are borne to lead while some are happy to follow. So hierarchies are formed, challenged, prevailed or taken down, and new ones formed, and the cycle is repeated.

Humans are not greedy for power. They are just animals who, like other animals, try to survive and thrive. If your statement was true then you and I would be greedy for power. I know I'm not, and I'm confident that you're not either.

Most social animals have a drive to organise, because that organisation lets them survive. There may have been groups of humans in the past who did not see the need to organise themselves into a hierarchy. Obviously, such a society would have zero chance of competing with more organised groups.

Why do we organise? Because those who didn't organise are gone.

Why do we fear death? Because those who didn't fear death are gone. Same principle.

[Sushan]

We can distinguish the two by a thought experiment where all humans are gone. If the subject still exists, it's part of the territory. If it disappears when humanity does, it was part of our maps. That seems to work pretty well, yes?

P.S. I acknowledge no "ontology" in this discussion, materialist or otherwise, I'm just offering my thoughts for your consideration.

That is an interesting thought experiment. But I wonder if this does not already presume the very ontology I am inviting to question.

Specifically, the experiment seems to rest on the assumption that only that which exists independently of consciousness can be considered real. In other words that reality is entirely mind-independent. In doing so, it implicitly adopts a materialist (or at least objectivist) metaphysics.

Let me offer a counter-thought experiment: imagine a reality composed entirely of minds—no matter, no space. Would we say that nothing is real in such a scenario simply because nothing remains when you subtract minds?

Seems like you're arguing over the use of the label "real" rather than any substantive issue.

Can we not recognise that for a thing or a phenomenon to exist in the objective world is different from it existing in somebody's mind ? Without getting into language-quibbles about how "real" each is ?

Metaphysical objectivity has to enter discussions like these, doesn't it? Whatever our perceptions might tell us, as philosophers we are sometimes inclined to wonder about the fundamental nature of Objective Reality — that which exists mind-independently, and so forth. And, whatever it is, this "Objective Reality" is the reference. It's what actually *is*. All else is supposition, speculation or imagination.

So it does matter what's "real" and what isn't (or may not be). If this is "materialist", then so be it. I just think it's (philosophical) common sense. So now we move to the question, "imagine a reality composed entirely of minds—no matter, no space". Interesting.

What is "real" in such a scenario? In my view — and it's my opinion, nothing more — the minds are real. The thoughts that cross those minds are real. The connections between these minds, or the communication they might share, those are real too. Aren't they?

If the minds are real, and their thoughts and connections are also, then we, as per my understanding, acknowledging that subjective phenomena can constitute reality.

If such mental elements can be real in a mind-only universe, why should they lose that status in a universe where they coexist with matter?

[Sushan]

Of course this is not a "map and territory issue". Humans indeed cannot avoid hierarchy and structure. All of history shows this. As soon as hierarchies break down, new ones form. For example, when Somalia's government collapsed, gangs took over, imposing their own hierarchies.

Humans are greedy for power, but some are borne to lead while some are happy to follow. So hierarchies are formed, challenged, prevailed or taken down, and new ones formed, and the cycle is repeated.

Humans are not greedy for power. They are just animals who, like other animals, try to survive and thrive. If your statement was true then you and I would be greedy for power. I know I'm not, and I'm confident that you're not either.

Most social animals have a drive to organise, because that organisation lets them survive. There may have been groups of humans in the past who did not see the need to organise themselves into a hierarchy. Obviously, such a society would have zero chance of competing with more organised groups.

Why do we organise? Because those who didn't organise are gone.

Why do we fear death? Because those who didn't fear death are gone. Same principle.

Well, you and I may not be not greedy for power, but parliaments around the world are filled with examples for greedy people.

In animal hierarchies, the leadership is mostly dependent on physical strength, because it is all about living through another day. And when two alphas fight for the leadership, the lost one never tries any cunning methods to steal that leadership, because that won't help in survival (I don't think 'Lion King' happens in reality). If everything humans did and are doing only for survival, why such cunning and shameful practices, not only once or twice but many times, are seeing among humans?

[Pattern-chaser]

If such mental elements can be real in a mind-only universe, why should they lose that status in a universe where they coexist with matter?

Do they? I'm not clear what you're saying here. Real mental elements remain real regardless of the presence of matter, I think.

[Sy Borg]

Of course this is not a "map and territory issue". Humans indeed cannot avoid hierarchy and structure. All of history shows this. As soon as hierarchies break down, new ones form. For example, when Somalia's government collapsed, gangs took over, imposing their own hierarchies.

Humans are greedy for power, but some are borne to lead while some are happy to follow. So hierarchies are formed, challenged, prevailed or taken down, and new ones formed, and the cycle is repeated.

Humans are not greedy for power. They are just animals who, like other animals, try to survive and thrive. If your statement was true then you and I would be greedy for power. I know I'm not, and I'm confident that you're not either.

Most social animals have a drive to organise, because that organisation lets them survive. There may have been groups of humans in the past who did not see the need to organise themselves into a hierarchy. Obviously, such a society would have zero chance of competing with more organised groups.

Why do we organise? Because those who didn't organise are gone.

Why do we fear death? Because those who didn't fear death are gone. Same principle.

Well, you and I may not be not greedy for power, but parliaments around the world are filled with examples for greedy people.

In animal hierarchies, the leadership is mostly dependent on physical strength, because it is all about living through another day. And when two alphas fight for the leadership, the lost one never tries any cunning methods to steal that leadership, because that won't help in survival (I don't think 'Lion King' happens in reality). If everything humans did and are doing only for survival, why such cunning and shameful practices, not only once or twice but many times, are seeing among humans?

People vary. Some are more interested in having power than others. In social animals, the ones at the top have support from strong lieutenants. Ditto humans. Sometimes we call those lieutenants "oligarchs". In order to stay in power, the leader must first make sure their supporters are satisfied. Then they are free to distribute other resources as they see fit.

In terms of power and leadership, both with humans and other intelligent mammals, networking is key.

[Sushan]

If such mental elements can be real in a mind-only universe, why should they lose that status in a universe where they coexist with matter?

Do they? I'm not clear what you're saying here. Real mental elements remain real regardless of the presence of matter, I think.

Yes — exactly! I am glad we are on the same page there.

My point was more rhetorical than literal.

If we are willing to grant full ontological status to mental phenomena in a mind-only scenario, then shouldn’t we also grant them equal footing in a mixed reality—rather than relegating them to the role of internal “maps” pointing to a supposedly more real “territory”?

[Sushan]

Humans are greedy for power, but some are borne to lead while some are happy to follow. So hierarchies are formed, challenged, prevailed or taken down, and new ones formed, and the cycle is repeated.

Humans are not greedy for power. They are just animals who, like other animals, try to survive and thrive. If your statement was true then you and I would be greedy for power. I know I'm not, and I'm confident that you're not either.

Most social animals have a drive to organise, because that organisation lets them survive. There may have been groups of humans in the past who did not see the need to organise themselves into a hierarchy. Obviously, such a society would have zero chance of competing with more organised groups.

Why do we organise? Because those who didn't organise are gone.

Why do we fear death? Because those who didn't fear death are gone. Same principle.

Well, you and I may not be not greedy for power, but parliaments around the world are filled with examples for greedy people.

In animal hierarchies, the leadership is mostly dependent on physical strength, because it is all about living through another day. And when two alphas fight for the leadership, the lost one never tries any cunning methods to steal that leadership, because that won't help in survival (I don't think 'Lion King' happens in reality). If everything humans did and are doing only for survival, why such cunning and shameful practices, not only once or twice but many times, are seeing among humans?

People vary. Some are more interested in having power than others. In social animals, the ones at the top have support from strong lieutenants. Ditto humans. Sometimes we call those lieutenants "oligarchs". In order to stay in power, the leader must first make sure their supporters are satisfied. Then they are free to distribute other resources as they see fit.

In terms of power and leadership, both with humans and other intelligent mammals, networking is key.

That’s a solid point — networking and securing loyalty clearly play a huge role in both human and animal hierarchies.

But if we accept the common claim that human behaviour is fundamentally about survival, then how do we account for actions that seem to risk survival rather than ensure it — like reckless power grabs, betrayal, or corruption that ultimately destabilise the very systems people depend on?