However, this third person point of view would be an error in conception. — schopenhauer1
Often when we think about points of view of the real (objective world, world outside human perception, world as it is, thing-in-itself, etc. etc.), we automatically assume a posture of a third-person point of view. — schopenhauer1
So, for example, if we think of a quark in physics, we think of some sort of particle or perhaps even a process (as a vibrating string perhaps). However, this third person point of view would be an error in conception. We always have an unintentional bias to conceptualize the objective world/thing-in-itself from some universally objective perspective (what Thomas Nagel might call "the view from nowhere") Why do we take this third person point of view
on the thing-in-itself and not assume another point of view? What would that point of view even be?
Why do we take this third person point of view on the thing-in-itself and not assume another point of view? What would that point of view even be? — schopenhauer1
t is ignoring the Cartesianism which is the philosophical misstep. — apokrisis
Again, the third person point of view is rightfully the invariant generality that would be seen across all possible acts of measurement. And so science turns out to know what it is doing. — apokrisis
However, the justification for Cartesianism, which has it's roots in ancient philosophy noting the distinction between appearance and reality, is that the way we perceive the world is clearly based on the kind of bodies we have, and not the way the world is. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a notable discrepancy between appearance and reality. — Marchesk
Sure, but in doing so, it reveals a perspectiveless view from nowhere that is different from how we perceive the world. Science reveals a world beyond perception, or in addition to how we perceive things. — Marchesk
Yeah sure. But would you conclude from that that brains model worlds or that there is a realm of mind that is somehow getting it all wrong about how the world actually is? — apokrisis
This is the naive realism that I was mentioning. — schopenhauer1
To take the math or the models as reality because it is how humans translate is anthropomorphisizing the universe. — schopenhauer1
To take the math or the models as reality because it is how humans translate is anthropomorphisizing the universe. You are taking the human view to be THE view outside all subjective views. — schopenhauer1
But the models are about something which is outside all subjective views, or at least human/animal ones, because as Apo mentioned, it's invariant across all such views. The mass of a table is not relative to any view. It's true that the concept of mass is human, but the property mass is about is not. It's real. — Marchesk
And understand that to be the epistemic game is the way to avoid falling into your idealist trap of forever complaining that "mind" doesn't get explained by science. Science does explain mind to the degree that is anthropomorphically useful.
And if you are not too much worried about that level of neurocognitive detail, then in fact standard theistic/romantic conceptions of the "mind" are the only model you need for day to day life. Cartesianism works as the standard model of everyday living for the ordinary person. Why make things more complicated? — apokrisis
Anyways, these arguments are a bit beside the point of this particular thread which is the question of what is the point of view outside of the subject object relationship we know. — schopenhauer1
So have you given up your Cartesian framing of the question - the one where the view would emanate from some now unlocated "mind" having "feelings of what it is like to be a third person"? — apokrisis
The third person objective point of view is the one that can afford to ignore every particular fact, every contingent fluctuation ... at least to the degree that is efficient for constructing a lived model of the world. — apokrisis
There is not much point knowing about neutrinos and quarks unless you can potentially do something with them. And there is absolutely no point in knowing the individual state of every neutrino and quark in the history of the Cosmos as what possible good purpose would that serve? Efficient modelling prefers to get by on making the least effort. So it is how much we can ignore - by summing reality up in t-shirt equations - which is the useful measure of our "objectivity". — apokrisis
The third person point of view then becomes some actual physical model of the world - an equation plus some set of measurements that will pump out a prediction. — apokrisis
And we find this third person model useful even if it doesn't itself contain anything but the most generalised kind of reason or telos - the thermodynamic imperative that is its maximally generic "point of view", the anchoring locus from which its description of the Cosmos emanates. — apokrisis
For this question it is required. — schopenhauer1
The view from nowhere, has no models. — schopenhauer1
Nervous laughter that I'm right? :razz: . If you have a rebuttal, let's hear it.LOL. — apokrisis
You don't rebut nonsense. You laugh at it. — apokrisis
it allows for the slipperiness of your argument. — schopenhauer1
So the problem is very often framed in reductionist or logically atomistic terms. What vantage point, what God-like mind, is capable of making every possible measurement of reality? How do we know every accidental detail that composes existence all at once, in its entirety, the complete data set with nothing left out.
And yet that way of framing the issue is utterly wrong. The cosmically general viewpoint that can "see it all" is the one that is everywhere but nowhere in that it is only contemplating the absolute bare essentials of existence. — apokrisis
But such a mind would need to take account of everything that does make a difference and be able to discern the difference between differences that make no difference and those that make a difference in order to eliminate the former and arrive at 'the cosmically general viewpoint". — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.