I can relate to that...I always want to be in a position to be able to say something more interesting...more interesting that is, than what I have been able to say.

One area I’m interested in is the idea that certain philosophical approaches (like enactivism and constructivism) argue that the regularities we find in science are not pre-given structures in nature, but patterns that emerge through our investigative practices. On this view, order is not merely discovered but enacted or co-created through the interaction between human observers, their conceptual frameworks, and the world they study.

The reason I find this interesting is that it flips the usual picture of science, so often used as the foundational justification for physicalist and narrowly atheistic accounts and offers a more interesting way to think about scientific knowledge and truth than the idea that they simply exist ‘out there' for us to discover.

I tend to agree with that approach, but it seems to me there are nuances. It is unarguable that everything we consciously perceive is the result of an almost unimaginably complex process of pre-cognitive processing, so our perceptions are models of the things that affect our bodies. Does it follow that what we perceive reveals nothing about what is "out there"?

I don't see how that follows. It also doesn't strictly follow that what we perceive reveals "exactly" what is out there either, but given our ability to navigate very successfully in the world I think it is most likely that what we perceive is in accordance with what is out there, including our own bodies, the structures of which are also, relative to conscious perception "out there".

It doesn't follow that things out there are exactly as we perceive them (naive realism) since we know by studying animals that their perceptual setups are different, sometimes very different, even though analogous, to ours. So, it seems most reasonable to think that we and the other animals perceive both what is possible given our various perceptual systems, and also selectively perceive what is of most significance.

So, I think constructivism goes too far, and is too human-centric. There is a distinction between the countless "Umwelts" out there, both human and animal, and the greater world within which all those Umwelts exist.

Does it follow that what we perceive reveals nothing about what is "out there"? — Janus

Whether it follows or not may not be the issue. Also, what is meant by “reveals nothing”? And what is meant by “out there”? I’m willing to entertain a constructivist view, though I haven’t spent much time thinking about it.

So, it seems most reasonable to think that we and the other animals perceive both what is possible given our various perceptual systems, and also selectively perceive what is of most significance. — Janus

I don’t think this makes much difference. Animals respond to shapes, movement, shadows, and food sources, patterns trigger responses. But what does this really say about reality itself? We all evolved from a common origin and "materials", so we likely share similar hard wiring, even if it has been organized radically differently over time. I really don't know how much animal comparisons give us.

But I don’t want to pollute this thread with yet another round of the realism debate in philosophy. :wink:

So, I think constructivism goes too far, and is too human-centric. — Janus

:100: :up:

Thanks for your forensic analysis of my summary of anti-foundationalism. — Tom Storm

Sure.

I’m arguing that in anti-foundationalism all justification occurs within our own systems, even for statements about justification itself. — Tom Storm

Then there is no possibility of saying that one system is better than any other, or that the claims of someone within one system are any better than the claims of someone in another system. See, for example, <this thread>.

I may not have done much of a job of articulating this and have tried to be more precise as I go, But philosophy is Leontiskos interest and so he has more tools at his disposal. — Tom Storm

In order to do philosophy you really just have to be honest with yourself. You have to very honestly ask yourself, "What am I saying and why am I saying it?"

The motive in all of these "anti-foundationalist" projects seems quite simple to me. Some person or some group of people appear overconfident, and the goal is to cut them down to size. "I think you are overconfident, therefore I am going to set out some thesis to support this." The problem is that the theses of the folks on TPF "prove too much." They prove that the objector himself is working with undue certainty, given that certainty itself is abolished in the attempt to prove overconfidence.

Thanks, I enjoyed the conversation.

Whether it follows or not may not be the issue. Also, what is meant by “reveals nothing”? And what is meant by “out there”? — Tom Storm

When I say "it doesn't follow" I just mean that it is not deductively certain. "Out there" to me means outside my body.

I don’t think this makes much difference. Animals respond to shapes, movement, shadows, and food sources, patterns trigger responses. But what does this really say about reality itself? We all evolved from a common origin and "materials", so we likely share similar hard wiring, even if it has been organized radically differently over time. I really don't know how much animal comparisons give us. — Tom Storm

So, animals also see shapes. movement, shadows and food sources; in other words the same patterns we do. We see the fruit on the tree as food source and so do rats, bats, birds and insects as any orchardist can attest.

The story that says we all evolved from a common origin is a realist story. Also that we may see things in similar or different ways, says nothing about what things will be seen where and when. As the fruit example show, even insects see fruit as a food source. It is the shared nature of the world that points to realism, to the idea that there really are things out there which are perceived by us and animals in understandable ways. I am not concerned about the final, unknowable metaphysical explanation for why and how those things fundamentally exist. They might be material existents or ideas in the mind of God. How could we know for certain? The question is: which explanation seems the more plausible to me or to you.

I don't object to other worldviews...what I find objectionable is the dogmatic attitude that says that the alternative worldviews is self-refuting, that demands that you must see things the way I do, that there is only one right way to view the world.

This is not off-topic...the Enlightenment was a response to centuries of Christian dogma and persecution of dissenters. I find moral crusades objectionable because they fail to respect human diversity. Scientism is also a dogma...the pendulum always swings too far in the opposite direction it seems. The human condition is characterized by uncertainty.

The story that says we all evolved from a common origin is a realist story. — Janus

From most perspectives, certainly. But Bernardo Kastrup, who is not a realist, believes in evolution and seems to address the apparent irreconcilability. Not that I hold his view, I’m just saying… (Don't ask me to summarise it, very tedious).

I am not concerned about the final, unknowable metaphysical explanation for why and how those things fundamentally exist. They might be material existents or ideas in the mind of God. How could we know for certain? The question is: which explanation seems the more plausible to me or to you. — Janus

Fair. I’m just interested in the role human cognitive apparatus and values play in the construction of our world. How far it goes, I don’t know, but many philosophers think it goes pretty far. I'd like to entertain this notion for a while before I reject it (if that's what I end up doing).

I think we mostly agree.

I'd like to entertain this notion for a while before I reject it (if that's what I end up doing).

I think we mostly agree. — Tom Storm

That seems to me a fair-minded plan―I think I would probably agree with you about how far it goes. I used to say that the human world is a collective representation―a kind of shared Umwelt, and I still think that. That is one side of the story for me. The other side is that we also live in a much larger world containing countless animal (and perhaps even plant) Umwelts. It seems to me a strange, but apparently true, thought that without percipients the whole vast world is blind, deaf and dumb―a silent tale signifying nothing.