that perception is an interaction with the environment, and not simply information about that environment being presented to us. — Michael

If one envisions the human brain as actively evolved in the process of perception, i.e. as the source of a reconstructive wave, and the environment as holographic in nature, them the whole process of perception becomes an interactive, holographic process.

This is a completely new way of envisioning perception, but it does eliminate all of the subject/object problems and explaining how images in the environment emerge from a brain. There image is actually "out there" and we perceive it out there, not in here.

This is all as Bergson described it, pre-holographic discovery. This is not enactivism though though somewhat akin.

I have encountered a few who through a literal interpretation of buddhist philosophy ...aka a misunderstanding of its philosophy, believe in the fundamental non existence of reality....what is the name for this philosophical stance? — Arran

My guess it's that you are misunderstanding their misunderstanding.

In any case, there is no literal interpretation of Buddhist philosophy because there is no one Buddhist philosophy. There is a multitude

You mean a choice such as the choice of a robot to move to the left rather than to the right because it is programmed to move to the left? — litewave

A robot it's programmed, a human isn't. A human programs the robot, at that point choices are being made.

That statement is false. We can and we do it all the time. I swam in the same river for years — creativesoul

You swam in a different river with a persistent name. That you give it the same name does not make the river the same but it is practical to call it with the same name. Someone else may give the river a different name or the river may dry up somewhere else and not even be observed as a river.

Everything is undergoing constant change but for practical reason we use symbolics to provide some persistence, but the symbolic does not prevent the change from occurring.

No, but this will take a longer post and I am off to lunch.

It is enough for an observation to be called a fact if it is true.

It is enough for an observation to be believed if... well, that depends. — Banno

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. Nice conversing with you. Enjoy your lunch!

↪Rich Then we are using "fact" in different ways.

Without verification then one would have to claim infallibility.
— Rich

I don't see why. — Banno

As understand it, it i is your position that it is enough for an observation to be called a fact if the observer felt all of the facts were true as represented. No verification or consensus of any sort is required. In such a case, a fact would be totally dependent upon how the observer represented it.

Hm. This is more difficult.

I submit that some things must be taken as undoubted in order for discussion to take place.

Roughly, on can doubt anything, but not everything. — Banno

Ok. I think we have reached the crux of the issue. At this point, only further contemplation of the issue by you and me will lead us to a different understanding than the ones we currently hold. Suffice to say we understand each other's current understanding of the issues.

"The kettle was boiling at 11:15pm on my stove". — Banno

I would call this an observation by you. Since it is passed there is no way for any verification of time or temperature. I would think that facts have to have persistency so that a consensus can develop. Without verification then one would have to claim infallibility.

I have no objection to there being unrepresented facts. — Banno

In light of current understanding of the universe as a quantum state (admittedly a gigantic one, but nothing more) what type of facts would you find embedded in the universe? It's just a constantly changing state.

So, I would think that there is something more going on here than just language. If, regardless of how the fact is represented, it remains true, than there is something more to the fact than just representation. — Banno

A reasonable hypothesis.

First one has to ask whether a fact had to be represented in some way. Possibly not. Maybe a fact
Is limited to one's own thoughts. This would lead to one branch of analysis.

If facts only exist as representations, the key question to ask is how to freeze reality, so that the fact is remains a fact despite any changes in the ongoing movement of reality.

I have reasons to believe whatever form a so-called fact may take, it cannot be declared such without accepting that information is incomplete and this the fact is subject to change depending upon a given observer's perspective.

An act of will is a choice to move in a particular direction. That is all that it is. Perception are virtual actions or possible direction of movement. There is nothing free but there is choice.

So, in my opinion, and in cohort with the pragmatists, it seems that facts are the physical laws and mathematical truths that govern the world at play.

Again, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it, it still falls. — Question

I don't believe in supernatural forces that govern things and create truths such as a God, gods, or Laws of Nature.

However, there are scientific descriptions in the form of mathematical equations, that are useful for practical purposes. Quantum physics only describes quantum states of systems per the Schrodinger equation. There is nothing else there other than quantum states that continuously change over time. Descriptions and deductions about the tree in question are products of the human mind not any scientific theory. Concepts such as tree and falling do not appear in the quantum equations.

Possibilities only apply to choices we make moving forward in duration (real time). The past is memory which is changing as we apply choices. It is a cohesive, indivisible whole. The world we live in is the result of all choices being made.

If it is the case that the constant state of flux causes one to believe that they cannot step into the same river twice, then that person cannot talk about the river. Different rivers have different names. Which river cannot one step into twice?

It's nonsense on stilts. — creativesoul

Not at all. It is the basis of many philosophies. One just needs to observe that what is symbolically called a given river is so named for practicality, recognizing that it is constantly changing and evolving in all manner and form. One only needs to recognize the practical reasons one names a river while still observing what is transpiring over duration.

A river is an excellent example and widely used to exemplify the flux in the universe. If one just studies this one will understand why it appears we live in a universe of mobility.

I just wanted to provide evidence that the universe is in constant flux everywhere at all time. It is up to you whether this affects your conception of truth and facts.

and on the macroscopic levels cats (as animals) exhibit perfectly stable and persistent behavior, even if on the subatomic level of description things behave differently (their quantum properties after all don't show up on the macroscopic level). — Fafner

I have never observed this. What I have observed is constantly changing behavior that may fall within the boundaries of probabilities but totally unpredictable (echoing quantum theory). No one has ever found a boundary between the micro and the macro and the flux in the universe percolates to all levels of observations. Quantum theory hold that all systems are in constant flux.

In any case, the crux of the issue lies in whether one can find immobility in the universe, that is persistent and consistent throughout duration, such that it can be call a truth or a fact. Such beliefs drive one's philosophical views and concurrently create all kinds of paradoxes as Zeno noted.

I don't see how this is relevant. — Fafner

Which is why you are comfortable with your position.

As John Bell described, there is a chasm between precision of knowledge and knowledge that is adequate for all practical purposes. [FAPP]. What you are describing as facts are approximations that are practicable but necessarily subject to continuous change depending upon time and observer. Nothing is persistent or consistent long enough to be a fact, though one can label it as such until this belief is undermined by new events. Necessarily different observers will label such differently depending upon time and position. The underlying reality is in constant flux as a whole. Heraclitus observed this whole watching a river as did the Daoists. It is not possible to create immobility in a universe of continuous change.

If this is what your argument really comes down to, then surely you've given no reasons to think there's no "fixed reality" (whatever that means). — Fafner

The evolving quantum state of any system per the Schrodinger's equation.

I believe that, originally, philosophy likewise was grounded in a the 'vision of the Good', — Wayfarer

I think that this concept evolved as one possible branch, but if we were to go back to origins, I would say philosophy was primarily concerned with: 1) observations that could provide practical explanations and advice about life as it was being experienced, and 2) some ideas about the connection between life and death.

Daoism, for example provide very particular ideas and advice about medicine, evolution, spirituality, relationships and was relatively neutral in concepts such as good and evil.

I do agree that science, by driving stakes in the ground with unassailable facts and installing themselves installing themselves as the final arbiter of the right way to think, did create their own brand of religion which itself morphed into a self-perpetuating industry that is wholely dependent on a belief system of infallibility.

I've spent a lifetime being skeptical of "established knowledge", and what I've learned is that what is established is just the tip of the iceberg and there is much more of a story to be told.

But such an undertaking takes lots of time and I certainly understand why people wouldn't wish to devote a good part of the lives unearthing more of the story.

As for believing something, it seems that people believe in lots of things that they don't understand. Medicine is one example.

It's well established that the physical world has facts. — Michael Ossipoff

I guess this is what is being discussed. Notice the OP with "facts" in quotes.

I personally don't believe there are facts for one fundamental reason, that is a fact represents some immobility in a universe which I believe is in a constant state of flux. In other words duration annihilates facts. I could imagine this as a piece of clay that when molded changes everywhere at once.

When testing this belief, it seems to hold. When presented with a problem, it appears that I cannot find the immobile fact. Everything is too fleeting and too fluid. Of course, this all may change because every idea I ever have is always changing as I learn more.

I might add that I find no downside to not believing in facts other than accepting the fluidity of life. New beliefs will modify old beliefs in radical or subtle ways.

Personally, I don't think in terms of facts. What is happening is that I observe the keys, I check the doors, I wonder how the keys can be in the car and the doors unable to open and then then start figuring out what to do next based upon my judgement of what is transpiring. It is a very
fluid situation as I work on the problem. Beliefs well change as more observations and judgements are made by me or someone else.

I might also add, there is a also a semantic issue here. For example, I may think that the doors are locked, but exactly at what point? Suppose I try the door, it is stuck, I believe it is locked, I try again and it opens. Defining situations via symbolic language is very tricky.

Any number of enumerable events may transpire that may further confirm my judgement or convince me otherwise. As with all beliefs, the situation always remains fluid. One can operate under these conditions, and that is what people do. They form judgements and then take actions or events transpire that confirm it deny.

That's fine. I've made judgements such as this. It's a belief I might have and it may even be practical to say is locked, but as with all such observations, the situation is fluid and any number of different events may change my mind about the situation.

This was my whole, and very clear quote. If you took that from it, you didn't read it very well:

No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car. — Thanatos Sand

Agreed. It it's not a fact, it is a personal judgement which of course could be incorrect.

To analyze the problem one must not be too quick to jump to a conclusion before uttering the statement, but instead has to analyze all possibilities that could make the statement a judgement call rather than a fact.

Maybe I should ask you to describe my colleague.
If you're conflating ontology and epistemology, then you'll conclude there's no such colleague.
And maybe there isn't for all you know. — jorndoe

Ask me, since it will illustrate the issue.

What you are doing is showing that everything that is known is by observation and observations will disagree for a number of reasons.

Now, if you you can illustrate what the moon would look like without observation, i.e. the attributes of a quantum field without observation, then it would certainly help to support your point of view, remembering of course that any observation affects the moon's quantum field.

I am not advocating god or debating religion but challenging a purely mechanical soulless view of reality. It seems like the mechanical view is based on completely ignoring major human attributes which simply can't be denied. — Andrew4Handel

It's not that human attributes are ignored, rather they are all squished into the brain somewhere and magically emerge. The classic phrase is "the selfish gene". It's called anthropomorphism, and that is what science does full-time.

Well I'm not trying to be exhaustively accurate with error-free certainty, just chatting about the Moon.
If you'd written "the Moon is a regular tetrahedron", then you might need new glasses or a new encyclopedia or something. :)
As mentioned, I'm not chatting about English, but about the Moon.
Not about the word "Moon" either, but about the Moon.

As an aside, I just noticed the Wikipedia page has a list of characteristics, mean/equatorial/polar radius, flattening, circumference, surface area, volume, ...
I guess you could register and fix the page? — jorndoe

All you have done is describe the moon after observation.

Now, describe it before observation.

More properly phrased, you know nothing about Rich until you observe Rich, and what observe about me may or may not be in concordance with what I observe about myself. In all probability we will disagree about almost everything. Such is the nature of observation.

I don't think it is possible to imagine a quantum field without observation.

It's not observation. It's imposition of a human concept onto an object that never had that concept as an essential attribute. And, as I mentioned before, the moon isn't even actually round, as it's not a smooth-edged orb. Your ignoring that fact doesn't change it. — Thanatos Sand

The moon is actually just a quantum field which has no attributes. Everything we see and think about the moon is the result of observation. With quantum theory, it is no longer possible to discuss any object without introducing an observer. Object/observer actually morphs into a process.

A NASA scientist's perspective:

"Let us ask a simple question: When you look up at night and "see" a star, what is "really" going on? A Newtonian philosopher might answer that you are "really seeing" the star, since, in Newtonian physics, the speed of light is reckoned as being infinite. An Einsteinian philosopher, on the other hand, would answer that you are seeing the star as it was in a past epoch, since light travels with finite velocity and therefore takes time to cross the gulf of space between the star and your eye. To see the star "as it is right now" has no meaning since there exists no means for making such an observation.

A quantum philosopher would answer that you are not seeing the star at all. The star sets up a condition that extends throughout space and time-an electromagnetic field. What you "see" as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye, and the local field is being modified as a result. You can interpret your observation as pertaining to a distant object if you wish, or concentrate strictly on local field effects."

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm

I'm not referring to our concepts or words, but the shape of the Moon.
Feel free to chat about the former; meanwhile I'll chat about the Moon. :) — jorndoe

All we know is that the moon is quanta which is essentially nothing. Anything you observe in your life is necessarily the result of the interaction between you, the observer, and the observed quanta. This is absolutely fundamental without any wiggle room.

It had that shape long before homo sapiens walked the Earth — jorndoe

And this is known how?

Roundness is an observation of a mind. Without the mind, the moon is just entangled quanta which is entangled with everything around it.

Absolutely, as Godel showed long ago, which is why I said Math was more successful in representing indisputability, but still is vulnerable to the dynamics of language. — Thanatos Sand

Yes, the vulnerability comes in several forms. I believe the fundamental problem is (and I know I am in a distinct minority) is that math, by necessity and practicality, must apply discreteness to a non-discrete (continuous) universe. This only becomes a problem when a particular mathematical construct (which is developed for practical application) is given ontological status. It happens quite often and creates all kinds of paradoxical problems.

A sensation it's a feeling of some sort. One would have to show that the brain is capable of feeling without resorting to anthropomorphism, a very tall order.

I believe all we can say is that each of us are reporting, as a total, holistic human , similar sensations under similar circumstances.

What I don't understand is why all the effort to squeeze a human into the brain?

Except all facts are presented in language, which is always a social context. Some facts, particularly those presented in the language of Math, are more successful in representing indisputability and resisting slippage into ambiguity. However, they're all presented in language. — Thanatos Sand

Yes, all statements of what is believed to be a fact is done so in some symbolic language which is inevitably ambiguous for a variety of reasons.

Mathematical symbols, when stated as a definition, are more resistant too change because they are accepted definitions (for now). However, mathematics when used as representational suffers from the v same problems as any symbolic language.

Not the same thought. Different intensity different thought different expressions...

Agree? — creativesoul

The thought itself, in memory is rather vague and fleeting. It doesn't stand still. Then there is the expression of that thought, by the mind which is somewhat more concrete but actually can be vague also. The expression attempts to describe the thought within the limited modes available-all are symbolic and therefore inadequate in some way.

Modernists authors (influenced by Bergson such as Virginia Wolfe) imbued these characteristics of thought and expression directly in their written works. Artists tend to delve into these matters more than philosophers though Bergson did not shy away.

Those who are looking for the utmost of simplicity will opt for God
— Rich

I must disagree. With God, we have 2, what Occam calls entities:

1. God

2. The mechanism of how 1 interacts with us

With determinism we have only one entity i.e. 2 — TheMadFool

The Laws of Nature can be viewed as One (the three words being considered one entity) but it appears to be much more than that (a myriad of almost undecipherable concepts, mathematical equations and such bundled together). In either case, which ever concept one chooses, they are both entities (or forces) acting upon us. In a way, God may be a bit easier to define, but whenever one begins to discuss omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent forces, it is going to get tricky.

Yeah, but we've already presupposed that the tree falls. Get the paradox? — Question

Yes, this in itself is immediately an observer (mind) dependent observation/thought.