I can accept that something external exists, but the question is if the everyday things we talk about are reducible to those external things. — Michael

Some of the everyday things we talk about are those external things. I'm not even sure what you're trying to ask me here. Trees aren't reducible... are they?

Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that.
— creativesoul

You simply assume that it does. It would have been more open-minded to have written: "Mt. Everest existed in it's entiretyor not regardless of whether or not one believes that." — Janus

If you re-read the entire post, you'd see that I said "if"...

C'mon Janus... you know better.

If you re-read the entire post, you'd see that I said "if"... — creativesoul

OK, fair point: I didn't read carefully enough and missed the "if".

I would laugh, elbow bump, and buy you a drink!

I wonder, what does the realist say about abstracts/mathematics; is it something human's created, or did it always exist and we just uncovered/discovered its truth... ? — 3017amen

A realist about mathematics is a Platonist. You can be a nominalist or a quietest about such matters and still be a realist about the world. Realism about one domain doesn't entail you to be a realist about another.

Regarding the world, you can have color realists, ordinary object realists, scientific realists and what have you. It just depends on one's ontology.

Would you be willing to indulge my curiosity here? I was agreeing with your point and just trying to dig a little more through possible misundertsandings.

You don’t have much to say about it because we’re - roughly speaking - on the same page, and/or because you don’t think it’s worth going down that road (I mentioned this because I view philosophy as tools of various perspectives rather than each category of philosophy as some godlike figure we should fawn over as an ‘absolute’).

Realism about one domain doesn't entail you to be a realist about another. — Marchesk

Which domain clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consists of?

Which domain clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consists of? — creativesoul

The mental?

Which domain clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consists of?
— creativesoul

The mental? — Marchesk

As in... in the head?

Where else would they be? On paper? In the cloud?

I wonder, what does the realist say about abstracts/mathematics; is it something human's created, or did it always exist and we just uncovered/discovered its truth... ? — 3017amen

It depends on the realist - what they think about concrete or physical things doesn't necessarily apply to abstract objects (or universals). For example, W.V.O. Quine was a nominalist while Bertrand Russell was a Platonic realist. Other options are also available such as Aristotle's immanent realism. Here's a useful taxonomy of the various alternatives.

So... the mental is the domain which clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consist of?

So... the mental is the domain which clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consist of? — creativesoul

Are you talking about what thought and belief refer to? Or are you talking about the nature of thought and belief?

You don’t have much to say about it because we’re - roughly speaking - on the same page, and/or because you don’t think it’s worth going down that road — I like sushi

The latter.

Let me know when you can keep up. Until then, I suggest a careful re-reading...

I’ll assume an ‘and’ then because I agree with what you said.

Thanks

We don't understand electrons in terms of something more fundamental, unless string theory turns out to be true. That's not the case with ordinary objects. — Marchesk

But we do understand electrons within an entire system of objects/concepts. To me that's a good anti-realist point (holism.)

:up:

The only evidence we have is that change occurs because of a will, when we will something we cause change to occur, we have no evidence that things change because they follow Laws independent of a will, that's an unsubstantiated postulate of modern science. — leo

What is the evidence, though, of this will? Of course we have some intuitive notion, but don't we have an equally good intuitive notion of law? The idea of nature includes necessity. To me it seems that something like law is fundamental to any kind of talk of nature of essence. Time is quietly involved in all of our thinking. What can knowledge be if we don't expect what we have knowledge about to continue acting as it has acted?

What is the evidence, though, of this will? Of course we have some intuitive notion, but don't we have an equally good intuitive notion of law? The idea of nature includes necessity. To me it seems that something like law is fundamental to any kind of talk of nature of essence. Time is quietly involved in all of our thinking. What can knowledge be if we don't expect what we have knowledge about to continue acting as it has acted? — Eee

Good questions, thanks for asking.

We also have an intuitive notion of law, but isn’t it the case that it is will that creates law? The laws that society follows were created by people through their will, and other people follow them.

Whereas the laws of Nature would be an instance of laws that spontaneously appear without a will involved, and we don’t have an intuitive notion of that.

There is no reason that the laws of Nature should continue being the same in the future as they have been in the past, we cannot know that they will, that’s the problem of induction. Maybe it is a will that is keeping them constant through time?

When I think of that it leads me to the idea that our existence within this universe might be a test, as some religions have proposed. Maybe there is a will that runs the laws of Nature in this universe, a will that has given us freedom to act within these laws, and watches what we are going to do with that freedom.

We also have an intuitive notion of law, but isn’t it the case that it is will that creates law? — leo

I must confess that 'will' was a concept in Schopenhauer that I could never digest. I like many of his ideas, but 'will' struck me as too vague, and I'm still finding it vague here.

The laws that society follows were created by people through their will, and other people follow them. — leo

Certainly human beings created laws, and certainly they had certain feelings tangled up in that. I can make sense of 'feelings' and 'actions.'

Whereas the laws of Nature would be an instance of laws that spontaneously appear without a will involved, and we don’t have an intuitive notion of that. — leo

I agree, and for this reason I expect the fact that we and the universe are here in the first place will remain mysterious. Or even unexplainable on principle, in that any explanatory principle would seem to have to be true for no reason.

There is no reason that the laws of Nature should continue being the same in the future as they have been in the past, we cannot know that they will, that’s the problem of induction. Maybe it is a will that is keeping them constant through time? — leo

I agree about the problem of induction. But note that you suggest the will as an explanatory entity. This would be the law of the laws. Why should we expect to will to continue as it has? The will as intelligible entity (albeit vague) seems to be tangled up in time. It has a nature that can be leaned on as a source of hypotheses.

When I think of that it leads me to the idea that our existence within this universe might be a test, as some religions have proposed. — leo

As you mention, it's an old idea. It does sound like a story that would help human beings make peace with all that's difficult in existence. I grant that it's possible. I could die and find myself in some new realm with memories of this life (allowing for continuity of personality so that I could understand myself to have been resurrected.) I believed this kind of thing in my church-attending youth.

Personally I don't believe it, but I do have other narratives, such as the value of mortality for forcing ourselves outside of our vanities, into a realization of how distributed and networked human virtue and knowledge are. If we were individually immortal, we might remain little monsters. Only together are we semi-immortal. The same great ideas and feelings move from vessel to fragile vessel. It's a hall of mirrors. Our own good and evil is reflected in millions of faces around us. My will is not at all single. For me we're all terribly multiple.

Maybe there is a will that runs the laws of Nature in this universe, a will that has given us freedom to act within these laws, and watches what we are going to do with that freedom. — leo

To me this sounds like God, which is fine. But I need a voice from the sky or a burning bush. And even then I'd look for hidden technology. Even if certain things are possible, I'm also keenly aware that human beings are masters of fantasy. As I see it, we are haunted by visions. Our big brains are like fun houses. Perhaps we only face reality, when we do, in order to arrange things so that we can go back to sleep for as long and often as possible. Even this philosophy forum and philosophy itself is a bit like a dream in the context of the rest of my life. And yet I love to dream philosophy.

I must confess that 'will' was a concept in Schopenhauer that I could never digest. I like many of his ideas, but 'will' struck me as too vague, and I'm still finding it vague here. — Eee

Certainly human beings created laws, and certainly they had certain feelings tangled up in that. I can make sense of 'feelings' and 'actions.' — Eee

There are things that make us want to act, and making that desire an action can be seen as actualizing a will. So the will can be seen as a desire, which itself can be seen as a feeling, as an experience. If you want yes we can simply talk of experiences and actions. Actions create change.

So what is the action that makes things in the universe follow apparent regularities or laws? There is an action behind that, either an outside action, or an action stemming from all elementary particles that act together, in both cases there is an action permeating the whole universe.

I agree, and for this reason I expect the fact that we and the universe are here in the first place will remain mysterious. Or even unexplainable on principle, in that any explanatory principle would seem to have to be true for no reason. — Eee

Why then not see this universe as having been created and being maintained, with us having the freedom to act within a range of actions that the outside entity allows us to have?

Then you may ask who created that outside entity, maybe it was created by others and so on and so forth, or maybe action is what existence is. Sometimes we ask why there is something rather than nothing, but aren’t we able to create things out of nothing? Sometimes we have ideas that do not seem to come from anywhere, to be caused by anything, as if they were free creations. It seems quite ungraspable to us how something can come out of nothing, but maybe ‘nothing’ is simply an idea, a creation of the ‘something’ that exists beyond space and time, like what we imagine sometimes doesn’t seem bounded by space or time.

I agree about the problem of induction. But note that you suggest the will as an explanatory entity. This would be the law of the laws. Why should we expect to will to continue as it has? The will as intelligible entity (albeit vague) seems to be tangled up in time. It has a nature that can be leaned on as a source of hypotheses. — Eee

We shouldn’t necessarily expect it to continue as it has, but for now it does, because that’s what it chooses. We too are able to imagine worlds in which we give some entities the freedom to act within certain constraints. Maybe this whole universe is one great imagination or dream of that entity, who has given us the freedom to act within certain constraints, and who would then have the ability to send us into other universes or planes of existence.

Personally I don't believe it, but I do have other narratives, such as the value of mortality for forcing ourselves outside of our vanities, into a realization of how distributed and networked human virtue and knowledge are. If we were individually immortal, we might remain little monsters. Only together are we semi-immortal. The same great ideas and feelings move from vessel to fragile vessel. It's a hall of mirrors. Our own good and evil is reflected in millions of faces around us. My will is not at all single. For me we're all terribly multiple. — Eee

I wouldn’t say it’s the idea of mortality itself that forces us to not be little monsters, after all some people see mortality as implying fundamental pointlessness of everything and so that it doesn’t matter what we do, whether we spread happiness or suffering, whereas some other people want to spread happiness just for the sake of it, even if they believe they aren’t being tested and that there is no death.

I would rather say we ourselves ultimately choose how we act, whether we attempt to unite or separate, love or fear, understand or hate, within the constraints of the universe we have to work with.

To me this sounds like God, which is fine. But I need a voice from the sky or a burning bush. And even then I'd look for hidden technology. Even if certain things are possible, I'm also keenly aware that human beings are masters of fantasy. As I see it, we are haunted by visions. Our big brains are like fun houses. Perhaps we only face reality, when we do, in order to arrange things so that we can go back to sleep for as long and often as possible. Even this philosophy forum and philosophy itself is a bit like a dream in the context of the rest of my life. And yet I love to dream philosophy. — Eee

Personally I see the regularities in this universe as evidence of a creator, not necessarily a creator who is testing us but simply a creator who has given us free will to shape the world we want within the constraints he set. Fundamentally these constraints are very basic, as I said in another thread I believe eventually we will be able to unify physics in two fundamental forces, one that attracts and one that repels, both propagating at the same velocity, and in that universe we and others, not just other humans but all living beings who have the ability to act, decide how they use these forces to shape the world they want.

A potential objection to that is to say that if these are the only two forces then everything is determined and we have no freedom to act, but these would be the only two forces within what we see with our eyes, which isn’t the whole of existence, we ourselves aren’t defined solely by the body we see with our eyes, by our appearance, we are more than that, our ability to act isn’t limited to changing what we see, it also includes changing how we feel and how others feel, which we have barely begun to explore, and maybe in the end we will realize that we have also the ability to change the apparent laws of the universe, and that these laws weren’t constraints imposed onto us, but tools that we had to learn how to use.

And I can’t believe that arrangements of atoms who arose out of some random primordial soup through laws that were there for no reason would be able to imagine such things, and feel such beauty.

It is indeed an absurd question; however, the question is simply a response the absurd statement “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” In order for the realist’s claim to have any meaning, he must know that which he defines as unknown. In other words, he claims to have knowledge about that which he cannot—by his own definition—have knowledge about. He can’t support his claim by relying on his experience of “knowing x” because said experience would fall under the condition of “x being known;” it is impossible for him to prove that “knowing makes no difference to what is known” unless he takes it as gratuitous. With the development of quantum mechanics, we know that observation or measurement does in fact alter the being of an object—take Schrödinger’s Cat as an example. Therefore, if the realist takes “the being of X is independent of its being known” or “knowing makes no difference to what is known” as simply a “given” on faith. With that being said, the realist’s position is undermined by groundbreaking discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which subsequently serve as evidence that go against the realist’s assertion that “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” — PessimisticIdealism

Who made that absurd statement? That would be like saying "the apple makes no difference to what the apple is".

I don't think anyone is claiming that you can have knowledge of something for which you don't have knowledge for. That makes no sense, so your question is based on a misunderstanding of what knowledge is. When you can make statements like that, or like "I know that I don't know anything", then we have a problem with our understanding of what knowledge is.

Using my explanation, do you get those types of absurdities? It seems to me that there is no information lost in observing or in communicating. It just depends on where you look and when.

With that being said, the realist’s position is undermined by groundbreaking discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which subsequently serve as evidence that go against the realist’s assertion that “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” — PessimisticIdealism

How does QM undermine realism if different scientists are coming to the same conclusion based on their observations of reality external to them? Who is it that agrees with them to form a consensus on QM if there is no external world? How can they share ideas via words on paper or sounds in the air if they only get at their own subjectivity, and not at the real actual paper with real ink scribbles and see, and interpret it, the same way?

I think Leo has done a somewhat convincing or otherwise eloquent job at making the case for the metaphysical will in nature.

Accordingly, and in more of a succinct fashion, indeed I think of it like Schopenhauer's metaphysical will in nature, along with combining it with Kant's concept of noumena/intuition, then finally with cognitive science's ontology (Maslowian constant state of human striving-Being).

In that way I think of it in a reductionist manner. Meaning if you consider lower life forms (cosmology), instinct, higher levels of intellect along with existing abstracts like math and music (higher consciousness), then how can you not infer a metaphysical Will as a driving force?

That is not to say human's don't have instincts as a shared feature of existence. Take procreation as an example. Is that instinct or the phenomena of Love? Is it a combination of the two (or something else)?

So the why's of existence, is another way of defining the meaning of a metaphysical Will in nature. It's the closest concept that we can grasp to existence [the nature of] or Being (higher consciousness).

how can you not infer a metaphysical Will as a driving force? — 3017amen

I can understand vaguely what is meant. The will-to-live is like a demon at the heart of things. I find it metaphorically true in some sense.

Why then not see this universe as having been created and being maintained, with us having the freedom to act within a range of actions that the outside entity allows us to have? — leo

We can do that. But I should mention that I don't think we're free. The responsible, free agent seems to me like an important fiction, but a fiction nevertheless. As I see it, we're all entangled in the causal nexus. Even if we're not exactly predictable, I think we all have a sense of human nature. To have a nature is to be caught in necessity.

Sometimes we ask why there is something rather than nothing, but aren’t we able to create things out of nothing? Sometimes we have ideas that do not seem to come from anywhere, to be caused by anything, as if they were free creations. — leo

Our ideas appear in our 'minds' in languages that have evolved over centuries, though. And then physical creation depends on a transformation and arrangement of the given.

And I can’t believe that arrangements of atoms who arose out of some random primordial soup through laws that were there for no reason would be able to imagine such things, and feel such beauty. — leo

Our situation is strange. I personally just don't know how we got here. Yes, science can tell a plausible story, but perhaps the ultimate origin that thinking craves is unknowable in principle (it being a kind of projection or impossible object.)

Are you talking about what thought and belief refer to? Or are you talking about the nature of thought and belief? — Marchesk

I wanted to redress this. My last comment came off as a bit too snarky for my own tastes. My apologies.

The latter...

Which domain sets out what all thought and belief consists of?

That a proposition isn't certain is not a reason to assume its negation. — Sophisticat

I’m not assuming its negation, rather I am saying it’s a meaningless proposition.

Which domain sets out what all thought and belief consists of? — creativesoul

I don't really know what "consists of" means here. Do you mean the nature of thought and belief? Because I would say mental since it hasn't been successfully reduced to something else. Do you mean what thought and belief point to? Because then a lot of the time it will be the world. Do you mean the social aspect of it? Are you asking whether they are public? Some of the time, yes. But not always.

We can do that. But I should mention that I don't think we're free. The responsible, free agent seems to me like an important fiction, but a fiction nevertheless. As I see it, we're all entangled in the causal nexus. Even if we're not exactly predictable, I think we all have a sense of human nature. To have a nature is to be caught in necessity. — Eee

If you assume that our whole existence is a consequence of laws we have zero control over then you are led to that conclusion. However consider that so-called physical laws are only tested in situations where living beings are not present or have a negligible influence. It isn’t clear at all that our whole bodies or even our whole brains are subjected to these laws. It isn’t clear either that all our experiences reduce to brain states.

Our ideas appear in our 'minds' in languages that have evolved over centuries, though. — Eee

I said ideas, but not necessarily ideas expressed in a language, you might call it imagination or spiritual experiences, sometimes we experience things that are so different from anything else that we see it either as a connection to another dimension or plane of existence, or as us being able to freely create experiences that aren’t simply combinations of other experiences.