The importance of perception. Did Dr Johnson refute Berkeley or just hurt his foot? Also did the Bishop anticipate the measurement problem in physics? The role of the observer from conceptual art to quantum physics seems alive and well. — Edmund

Uncompromising Realists are assuming that they can observe the world from an objective perspective, which eliminates the subjective biases of the observer. Although, objectivity is the ideal goal of Science, it's an unattainable perfection. Objective purity would require decontaminating the body of its "selfish genes" and the mind of "acquired beliefs". And the same goes for inflexible Idealists.

However, even polarized Realism vs Idealism or Objectivism vs Subjectivism philosophical positions are peculiar personalized belief systems. They are not obtained from a privileged universal all-seeing point of view. That's why we have to occasionally purge our erroneous beliefs by comparing them to other partial perspectives, as on this forum. The result will not be Purity, but it may be de-polarized and homogenized. From that broadened perspective, we may be able to see both Matter and Mind. :smile:


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
BothAnd Glossary

Homogenized : mixed ; merged ; blended ; synthesized ; unified

The importance of perception. Did Dr Johnson refute Berkeley or just hurt his foot? — Edmund

He just hurt his foot. If idealism is true then of course things 'appear' to look and feel solid. That's the point.

Uncompromising Realists are assuming that they can observe the world from an objective perspective, which eliminates the subjective biases of the observer. — Gnomon

Maybe some naive realists assume that, but sensible realists find the imaginable possibility that the Universe exists independently of humans more plausible than its imaginable antithesis.

Uncompromising Realists are assuming that they can observe the world from an objective perspective, which eliminates the subjective biases of the observer. Although, objectivity is the ideal goal of Science, it's an unattainable perfection. — Gnomon

From a realist perspective, bias is a dirty word , a failure to grasp what is truly there to be grasped, if only as an unreachable ideal, an ‘unattainable perfection’. For post-realism, objectivity is a dirty word , concealing what is always already there for us, and ‘bias’ speaks to the actual world, not to a flawed representation of it.

If "the observer" is real, then "the observer" is "observer"-independent; if "the observer" is not real, however, then the question is moot.

If the scene of the crime has been declared contaminated, no object in it may be used as evidence. No, Dr. Johnson couldn't have/hasn't refuted Bishop Berkeley. However, why did Dr. Johnson think he had refuted Bishop Berkeley? Is there something non-mind about perception/bodily pain? Intriguing...

Uncompromising Realists are assuming that they can observe the world from an objective perspective, which eliminates the subjective biases of the observer. Although, objectivity is the ideal goal of Science, it's an unattainable perfection. Objective purity would require decontaminating the body of its "selfish genes" and the mind of "acquired beliefs". And the same goes for inflexible Idealists.

However, even polarized Realism vs Idealism or Objectivism vs Subjectivism philosophical positions are peculiar personalized belief systems. They are not obtained from a privileged universal all-seeing point of view. That's why we have to occasionally purge our erroneous beliefs by comparing them to other partial perspectives, as on this forum. The result will not be Purity, but it may be de-polarized and homogenized. From that broadened perspective, we may be able to see both Matter and Mind. :smile: — Gnomon

Spoken like a true realist.

Any time you attempt to explain how reality is not just for yourself, but for others, then you are a realist that is making the case that you have an objective view of the world - of how it is not just for yourself, but for everyone, even if they aren't aware of it or disagree.

Maybe some naive realists assume that, but sensible realists find the imaginable possibility that the Universe exists independently of humans more plausible than its imaginable antithesis. — Janus

My post was not directed at the independence of human observers from what they are observing, but merely noting that perfect Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality. The Objectivity of Science is not a property of any single observer, but of the bias-canceling methodology of Collective Skepticism, which tends to balance extreme views into a mean or average. The Stanford article below makes the same point : Science may be objective, but a particular scientist is still subject to personal bias. :smile:

PS__I won't go into the debatable implications of Quantum Entanglement for the independence of the observer.

SCIENCE AND SUBJECTIVITY :
Scientific knowledge is purely objective, and it is an objective description of the real structure of the world.
https://www.banglajol.info

Scientific Objectivity :
Objectivity comes in degrees. Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, . . . . The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

"The first principle [of scientific skepticism] is that you must not fool yourself --- and you are the easiest person to fool"
___Richard Feynman, physicist

Spoken like a true realist. — Harry Hindu

No. The point of my post was to avoid a polarized position on either end of the Real - Ideal spectrum.
I'm not a true anything. As noted in the post, my personal philosophy is BothAnd. As a relative Realist, I accept the evidence of my eyes as plausible facts, upon which to build my personal model of Reality. But as an amateur philosopher, I also accept that vetted ideas are also useful bricks for my model. Your mental model of Reality may be different from mine, but on this forum, we can share our biased views, in order to see our differences and our agreements. That is not likely to result in a "true" view of the world. But it's better than being blind in one eye. :cool:


Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena. It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

From a realist perspective, bias is a dirty word , a failure to grasp what is truly there to be grasped, if only as an unreachable ideal, an ‘unattainable perfection’. For post-realism, objectivity is a dirty word , concealing what is always already there for us, and ‘bias’ speaks to the actual world, not to a flawed representation of it. — Joshs

Yes. In the ideal true perfect model of Reality, there can be no bias or ignorance. But that model only exists in heaven. We can strive to reach the unreachable star of perfect objectivity. But only Idealists believe they are already there. :joke:


To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
And to run where the brave dare not go

This is my quest . . . .

To reach the unreachable, the unreachable
The unreachable star

Great discussion. Interested in something being "more or less objective" doesn't work with absolutes but I can live with shifting relativity to a fixed point which doesn't need to be absolute ..

Did Dr Johnson refute Berkeley or just hurt his foot? — Edmund

For that we'd need to show that his foot really hurt. That he wasn't just imagining it.

My post was not directed at the independence of human observers from what they are observing, but merely noting that perfect Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality. — Gnomon

OK, if that's all you were claiming then I cannot but agree; perfect anything is an ideal, not a reality.

Great discussion. Interested in something being "more or less objective" doesn't work with absolutes but I can live with shifting relativity to a fixed point which doesn't need to be absolute .. — Edmund

Yes. In this thread we are arguing over the same polarized philosophical positions as Physics (Materialism) vs Metaphysics (Idealism). I reconcile that apparent contraposition with the BothAnd philosophy. I suppose you could call it a perspective that shifts its position depending on the relation between subject & object. That's similar to a Doppler Shift or Gravitational Lens Shift of stars. The star is not really changing position but merely it's apparent position relative to the observer. :nerd:

Meta-Physics :
4. "Physics" refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. "Meta-physics" refers to the ideas we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
BothAnd Blog glossary

META-PHYSICAL PROBOSCIDEAN


PHYSICAL ELEPHANTIDAE

If "the observer" is real, then "the observer" is "observer"-independent; if "the observer" is not real, however, then the question is moot. — 180 Proof

Are you saying that a thing must be independent from itself to be real? Isn't it sort of contradictory, or at least in violation of the law of identity, to say that a thing might be independent from itself? Or, are you promoting a distinction between "the observer" as a particular, and "observer" in general? Wouldn't that still be contradictory, making "the observer" not an "observer"?

No. The point of my post was to avoid a polarized position on either end of the Real - Ideal spectrum.
I'm not a true anything. As noted in the post, my personal philosophy is BothAnd. As a relative Realist, I accept the evidence of my eyes as plausible facts, upon which to build my personal model of Reality. But as an amateur philosopher, I also accept that vetted ideas are also useful bricks for my model. Your mental model of Reality may be different from mine, but on this forum, we can share our biased views, in order to see our differences and our agreements. That is not likely to result in a "true" view of the world. But it's better than being blind in one eye. :cool: — Gnomon

You seemed to have overlooked this part of my post:

Any time you attempt to explain how reality is not just for yourself, but for others, then you are a realist that is making the case that you have an objective view of the world - of how it is not just for yourself, but for everyone, even if they aren't aware of it or disagree. — Harry Hindu

So again, here you are explaining how things are for everyone, not just yourself. So again, you are projecting your ideas about how things are independent of yourself, and how things are even if I were to disagree or not be aware of these "facts" that you are asserting.

Is it true that there is such a thing as a forum where we share ideas, or that we have ideas to share, or that you and I are separate entities that share ideas? If not, then your whole post is just a lot of scribbles. If it's not a true view of the world then how can it be more useful than being blind in one eye? Are you saying that the information received through your eyes is true, accurate, or what?

Objective purity would require decontaminating the body of its "selfish genes" and the mind of "acquired beliefs". — Gnomon

Why it does require that? We can consider an object without decontaminating our body of "selfish genes" and the mind of acquired believes. We can discover all kinds of properties in the studied object. These are objective properties.

The questions we ask the object will modify the object and the object will answer accordingly. Both us and the object are involved in it's construction.

Are you saying that a thing must be independent from itself to be real? — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

Isn't it sort of contradictory, or at least in violation of the law of identity, to say that a thing might be independent from itself?

Yes.

Or, are you promoting a distinction between "the observer" as a particular, and "observer" in general? Wouldn't that still be contradictory, making "the observer" not an "observer"?

No. Maybe.

So again, here you are explaining how things are for everyone, not just yourself. So again, you are projecting your ideas about how things are independent of yourself, and how things are even if I were to disagree or not be aware of these "facts" that you are asserting. — Harry Hindu

That's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. So, apparently, you are "explaining how things are" for me. Can you point to a "fact" that I was asserting? My assertions were in the form of personal opinions. Of course, those opinions are based on the facts as-I-see-them. But you seem to see them differently. That's OK though. That's what a philosophy forum is all about. Yet you are accusing me of Pontificating, which the last thing I would do. Sounds like you are "projecting your ideas" onto me. What did I say to cause you to portray my personal opinions as dogmatic declarations? :gasp:

Are you saying that the information received through your eyes is true, accurate, or what? — Harry Hindu

Just the opposite. My philosophical position is BothAnd, not Either/Or. As noted in the quote above, we obtain Information via our physical senses, and our meta-physical reasoning. But I suppose that a hard-line Realist would reject any information that doesn't have a physical instance. That's what I referred to as being "blind in one eye". Did you miss the link above, that says "reality is not what you think it is"? Rovelli is not rejecting Meta-physics, but pointing-out that Materialism is not a complete (true or accurate) model of Reality. :smile:

PS___ I apologize for sounding defensive. But your "disagreement" seems visceral & aggressive instead of rational & philosophical. Come, let us reason together.

Why it does require that? We can consider an object without decontaminating our body of "selfish genes" and the mind of acquired believes. We can discover all kinds of properties in the studied object. These are objective properties. — Cornwell1

Ideally, yes. But, the confidence that your consideration of an object is free from bias (dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective) could indicate that you are not aware of your subconscious motives and beliefs. That's why Skepticism requires, not only a critique of others, but a self-assessment of your own values. I would like to think that I am always objective, but posting on this forum is a quick way to be challenged to re-assess your own philosophical position. :cool:

But I suppose that a hard-line Realist would reject any information that doesn't have a physical instance. — Gnomon

Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? :chin:

But, the confidence that your consideration of an object is free from bias (dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective) could indicate that you are not aware of your subconscious motives and beliefs — Gnomon

I'm well aware that reality as I perceive the object with a bias. How else could it be? But so does Rovelli, who objects to the notion of a particle. I don't see a problem in the particle concept. I think the notion of everyday objects can be applied to the micro world. Particles actually zipping through space, collectively and irreversible, while reversible on the micro level.

Our bias is projected onto the material world. Some perceice atoms as structureless particles constituting an ideal gas, others see atoms as liquid micro drops encapsulated by a structured cloud of electron activity, and still others see the nucleus only and consider it an aggregate of liquorice and sugar, ignoring the charged sugar swarming around it. :razz:

Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? — 180 Proof

The same way you distinguish Truth from Falsehood. You can't depend on shape or texture or smell to differentiate good ideas from bad ideas. But your sixth sense of Reason is your Lie Detector.

Unlike your physical senses, your meta-physical sense has a built-in logic, but it still must be programmed with instances of both signal and noise, in order to have a basis for comparison. A rose aroma in a bottle might smell as sweet, but it could be artificial. That's why we have mandated labels, because the senses can be fooled by cheap imitations (Wakisaki). :joke: .

I don't see a problem in the particle concept — Cornwell1

Rovelli doesn't have a problem with the concept (idea) of a particle. But the reality of a particle is ambiguous (metaphor or object?). As a waveform, it is an immaterial mathematical function, and only when that (potential) function "collapses" does it take on an (actual) Eigenstate (inherent position or momentum). That's when its mathematical qualities convert to physical properties. The wave-function can be calculated, but the physical state must be measured. :smile:

What is a particle? :
These difficulties have lead some to suggest that in general QFT should not be interpreted in terms of particle states, but rather in terms of eigenstates of local operators.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409054

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality? :
Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

The same way you distinguish Truth from Falsehood. — Gnomon

:roll: Category mistake (truth-maker (informational form) in terms of truth-claim (propositional content)) —> moving the goal posts.

Unlike your physical senses, your meta-physical sense has ...

How do you/we know I/we have a "meta-physical sense"? Evidence please.

Maps =/= territory, remember? :sweat:

Category mistake — 180 Proof

Yes. My whole worldview is a Category Mistake to you. It merely accepts that Mind is just as much a part of Reality as Matter. Therefore, in order to remove Mind from the world, you'd have to eliminate all thinking creatures. Especially humans. Just think, for almost 14 billion years, the universe consisted of your preferred Category. No immaterial ideas or mistaken opinions to ruin the perfection of a smooth-running physical machine. It's been all downhill since the first caveman saw fire as a tool, not just a scary physical phenomenon like lightening. :joke:

How do you/we know I/we have a "meta-physical sense"? Evidence, please. — 180 Proof

The existence of Meta-physical senses was an opinion of philosphers for thousands of years. Only in the last couple of centuries have smart people acted as-if they were mindless. The evidence is Rational inference, not Physical measurement. So, mindless hunks of matter are oblivious to it. :cool:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Note -- Where is the physical evidence for any of the above principles? Do you have a sense for immaterial principles? I do; it's called "Reason".

My whole worldview is a Category Mistake to you. — Gnomon

Your flavor of idealism, G, like the others, conflates ontology and epistemology – what is real = what i/we know ... what i/we know = what is real – from which many instances of category mistakes follow. A "worldview" is dogma (i.e. sophistry at best), IMO, not a philosophy.

It merely accepts that Mind is just as much a part of Reality as Matter.

Well, I've never claimed "mind" is not "a part of reality", only that "reality" is not "mind"-dependent and that "mind" is demonstrably "matter"-dependent (like e.g. digestion is guts/metabolism-dependent).

The existence of Meta-physical senses was an opinion of philosphers for thousands of years.

Oh yes, just as "aether, phlogiston, angels, humors, demonic possession, teleology, burning bushes, ghosts, faeries" etc have been professed by esteemed "opinion" – appeal to tradition / authority / popularity fallacies – for many millennia. :sweat:

A particle is no concept. It's a reality.

Your flavor of idealism, G, like the others, conflates ontology and epistemology – what is real = what i know / what i know = what is real – from which many instances of category mistakes follow. A "worldview" is dogma (i.e. sophistry at best), IMO, not a philosophy. — 180 Proof

I'm sorry my "flavor of Idealism" doesn't suit your personal taste. Your mis-interpretation and mis-characterization of my worldview doesn't offend me, but it does amuse me. You seem to be spooked by a ghost that's merely reflected light. My BothAnd model does indeed "conflate" (or conciliate) the nature-of-being, and theory-of-knowledge. But that's not just a New Age position, it has become fairly common among scientists, especially Quantum Physicists. It doesn't deny Reality, but, unlike hardline Materialism, merely includes mental properties within the scope of Being and Knowing. Your worldview might be dogmatic & one-sided, but mine is necessarily open-minded & holistic. Open to both material Actuality and to mental Possibility. My world is not Black & White, it includes all the colors of the rainbow.

You accuse me of dogmatic anti-reality Idealism, when my model is actually a blend of classical Realism and quantum Idealism (see below). I'm not making this sh*t up. I get most of it from sober physicists, not Age of Aquarius astrologers. However, I am grateful that some people are at least looking at the other side of the Real coin. When I go to the local health food store, owned by a turban-topped American Sikh, I admire some of the artistic trinkets that portray nature, not as dead matter, but as a living organism. While I ignore the books on Goddesses, Gurus, & Angels, I appreciate the reverent attitude toward the Life that animates the material world. Peace & Love. :grin: :victory:

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

Quantum Idealism? :
In his book The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose points to two of the most popular ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics given by physicists: “(a) there is no reality expressed in the (mathematical) formalism of quantum mechanics at all, and the diametrically opposite view of (b) that the quantum state completely describes actual reality with the alarming implication that all quantum alternatives must always continue to coexist.”
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/quantum-idealism/

Worldview : a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Sophistry :
Many people confuse “sophistry” with “philosophy.” They think that philosophers are arrogant charlatans who foolishly think they know something.
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-difference-between-sophistry-philosophy/

A particle is no concept. It's a reality. — Cornwell1

Is that an empirical fact, or a theoretical belief? Is the particle physical or virtual? :smile:

Do virtual particles actually physically exist? :
Thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word virtual particles are particlemorphic ( :) ), having a form like particle but not a particle.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist