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.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. — Gnomon
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
Spoken like a true realist.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
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: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
No. The point of my post was to avoid a polarized position on either end of the Real - Ideal spectrum.Spoken like a true realist. — Harry Hindu
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: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 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: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
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
You seemed to have overlooked this part of my post: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
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.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
Objective purity would require decontaminating the body of its "selfish genes" and the mind of "acquired beliefs". — Gnomon
No.Are you saying that a thing must be independent from itself to be real? — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes.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?
No. Maybe.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"?
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: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
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:Are you saying that the information received through your eyes is true, accurate, or what? — Harry Hindu
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: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
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
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.Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? — 180 Proof
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:I don't see a problem in the particle concept — Cornwell1
:roll: Category mistake (truth-maker (informational form) in terms of truth-claim (propositional content)) —> moving the goal posts.The same way you distinguish Truth from Falsehood. — Gnomon
How do you/we know I/we have a "meta-physical sense"? Evidence please.Unlike your physical senses, your meta-physical sense has ...
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:Category mistake — 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:How do you/we know I/we have a "meta-physical sense"? Evidence, please. — 180 Proof
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.My whole worldview is a Category Mistake to you. — Gnomon
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).It merely accepts that Mind is just as much a part of Reality as Matter.
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:The existence of Meta-physical senses was an opinion of philosphers for thousands of years.
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.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
Is that an empirical fact, or a theoretical belief? Is the particle physical or virtual? :smile:A particle is no concept. It's a reality. — Cornwell1
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.