I thought you were asking me to speculate as to what the structures we perceive as objects might be.It seems animals will not conceptualize structures in the ways we do or even conceptualize them at all. Perhaps I don't understand your question.
I agreed with this bold part, and I thought this meant we agreed on there being real microphysical things in the world.
But then I got confused when you said:
"OK cool it seems we agree. I think we and the other animals have access to the same basic structures." — Manuel
But I don't deny the fact that there are real objects external to us. I will try one more time: — Wayfarer
So I'm not denying that there are objective facts (and therefore the existence of objects). What I said was
By investing the objective domain with a mind-independent status, as if it exists independently of any mind, we absolutize it.
— Wayfarer
And 'absolutizing it' amounts to metaphysical realism: — Wayfarer
It seems we are an impasse here for the time being. I propose to park the conversation here and we can pick it up in some other thread, maybe by then we could understand each other better,
But I suspect we agree on something like 70% of the main topics, that is, if you still maintain some agreement with some version of Kant (albeit modified), if not then we may have drifted apart, which is fine.
I'll leave the proposal for you to decide. — Manuel
I do address them, and you object to my objections. I'm not lecturing you, just making my case. You don't like, fine. You can't say I don't make an effort. — Wayfarer
Meaning, you can't have any idea of it. — Wayfarer
Now, it's your turn to explain how you believe that "matter" signifies something other than an idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
I was not evaluating your comment, I was asking if this structure is what you think is the same for all creatures - as I did not understand your specific description. — Manuel
You defer to science as the arbiter of reality, saying that anything that can't be known by science is a matter for faith. — Wayfarer
A number of others have already addressed that - we're equipped with the same senses and inhabit a world of shared definitions, so we tend to see things the same way. — Wayfarer
So, some microphysical thing? — Manuel
Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
Naturalism? — Gnomon
This is due to the fact that matter, or energy, whatever term you choose, signifies only an idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
If we take two people, point them to the horizon in a particular direction, in an active situation, and ask them to make a sentence about what they see, they will undoubtedly make different statements. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think so. I think his doubt is rhetorical. A way to doubt the teachings and authority of the Church by feigning to doubt everything. — Fooloso4
Although Descartes isolates himself in his room, as a thinking thing he is not isolated. As a thinking thing he is connected to thinking itself, that is to say, to what is thought not just by him but other thinking beings before and after him. The nature of thinking is something we do together, a joint project, something that occurs between human beings. The thinking self is not just the individual but thinking itself, which is by its nature public. — Fooloso4
Would you agree that Jimi drew a correlation between his behaviour(killing) and your behaviour towards him afterwards? — creativesoul
This, ↪Janus
, is Waif's strong doctrine. If you press it's logic, he will deny it, stepping back to some merely transcendental reality. — Banno
What does "structure" cover for you? Does it cover the shape of a thing or it's qualia or what? That's a bit unclear to me. — Manuel
They don't bump into something. Cats "climb" something (as opposed to go up? or latching on?). Yeah, they surely do stand on something. We conceptualize it as a tree - we have that linguistic and alongside that, conceptual capacity to apply the label "tree" to this thing animals react to. — Manuel
I keep emphasizing that there are two distinct meanings of 'mind-independent': a practical meaning and a metaphysical meaning, the latter corresponding to metaphysical realism. — Wayfarer
Can they? Do dogs see trees? — Manuel
That we all agree down to the smallest part on how objects appear to us, simply tells us we are all human beings. — Manuel
Now we know that there is such a thing as time and space absent us, which are quite different from our intuitive understanding of them. — Manuel
'If the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, be removed, the whole constitution and all the relations of objects in space and time, nay space and time themselves, would vanish; and as appearances, they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us.' — Wayfarer
That is a point made from outside experience. It is viewing humans among other phenomena, as paleontology would do, or as anthropology would do. — Wayfarer
But apart from that, I think ordinary objects, so called, trees and apples and river and laptops, are mental constructions. And how much of science is a construction is tricky. — Manuel
Could it be that, rather than my not addressing your questions, that you don't understand the responses? — Wayfarer
Isn't this the case with most of us? We have a certain view and after having read and thought a lot about something, we choose an option. We will tend to defend that view, unless a very strong reason is given as to why one's view is flawed. — Manuel
It's coherent to say 'it is true that the planet will still exist when humanity has become extinct'.
— Janus
Then you're saying that there will be a truth without minds, if you think there are no non-human minds. — Leontiskos
You still haven't given any explanation of how one can make true statements about the future without claiming that something will be true in the future. These are the same unaddressed issues we faced at the very beginning of the conversation. — Leontiskos
If deciding whether reality is 'physical' or 'mental' requires a leap of faith, then realism is in no better position than idealism. — Wayfarer
As I understand it, doubting entails existence. Existing is a necessary condition for doubting. — Fooloso4
I don't think constructivism denies that, nor do I in the OP - as I said I acknowledge there are objects unseen by any eye. — Wayfarer
Contructivism's core idea is that knowledge is a construction created by the mind, based on experience and prior knowledge, which provides the conceptual framework into which experience is incorporated. — Wayfarer
Radical constructivism stays neutral about the mind-independent world. It says, "We can't know reality as it is; we only know how we construct it." — Wayfarer
So this is not a 'matter of faith', and I think the reason you keep saying that over and over again is because you're not seeing the point. — Wayfarer
Incidentally I am seeing how this 'mind creates world' meme is proliferating on the Internet right now. In various substack and medium feeds, there are articles on it practically every day, some thought-provoking and sober, some entirely ridiculous. — Wayfarer
evolutionary biology provides a kind of default basis for normativity, along the lines of what is 'advantageous for survival' — Wayfarer
He clearly states it. The fact that we all share many common elements of experience is not an argument against constructivism, because it simply means that we overall construct the world in the same way.
Constantly interpreting these questions as an ‘appeal to faith’ doesn’t do justice to them. Husserl was committed to a scientific approach. — Wayfarer
Which questions? — Wayfarer
I don’t think the passage I quoted considers that question. The key point for me was his objection to treating consciousness as part of the domain of naturalism. — Wayfarer