how then can you say the world existed before humans, if it's a collective construct? — Wayfarer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_MeillassouxMeillassoux argues that post-Kantian philosophy is dominated by what he calls "correlationism", the theory that humans cannot exist without the world nor the world without humans.[6] In Meillassoux's view, this theory allows philosophy to avoid the problem of how to describe the world as it really is independent of human knowledge.
Whereas what modern science has tended to do is to declare that 'the subject' is completely separate from the external realm, and that meaning and quality (qualia) only inhere in the internal or subjective dimension of thought, thereby devoiding the 'real' world of meaning and purpose. — Wayfarer
Statements can be justified only by other statements, and therefore testing comes to an end, not in the establishment of a correlation between propositional content and observable reality, as empiricism would hold, but by means of the conventional, inter-subjective acceptance of the truth of certain basic statements by the research community.
The acceptance of basic statements is compared by Popper to trial by jury: the verdict of the jury will be an agreement in accordance with the prevailing legal code and on the basis of the evidence presented, and is analogous to the acceptance of a basic statement by the research community
The question will remain, how then can you say the world existed before humans, if it's a collective construct? — Wayfarer
Consider this. All of the vast amounts of data being nowadays collected about the universe by our incredibly powerful telescopes and particle colliders is still synthesised and converted into conceptual information by scientists. And that conceptual activity remains conditioned by, and subject to, our sensory and intellectual capabilities — determined by the kinds of sensory beings we are, and shaped by the attitudes and theories we hold (which is the lesson of embodied cognition and enactivism). And we’re never outside of that web of conceptual activities — at least, not as long as we’re conscious beings. That is the sense in which the Universe exists ‘in the mind’ — not as a figment of someone’s imagination, but as a combination or synthesis of perception, conception and theory in the mind (which is more than simply your mind or mine). — Wayfarer
what he's arguing against is not 'reality' per se, but 'objectivism' — Wayfarer
Culture can determine the forms in which we understand things, but it cannot account for the everyday fact that we don't only see things in the same general ways, but see exactly the same things in detail at the same places at the same times. — Janus
Again, not saying the world is 'only in your mind'.All of that is not sufficient to explain the simple facts of everyday experience. — Janus
This is where the non-objectivity of quantum mechanics enters the picture. When you seek the underlying, objective ground from which all of the objects of everyday experience are supposedly derived, it is found to be different for every observer (e.g. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40460495/objective-reality-may-not-exist/) — Wayfarer
Again, not saying the world is 'only in your mind'. — Wayfarer
If there is no objective ground, if we all mold our own realities, then how do we explain the fact that we all see the same things? — Janus
According to QBism, an approach developed by Christopher Fuchs and me, the great lesson of quantum mechanics is that the usual starting point of the philosophers is simply wrong. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as it is by itself. Instead, it is a tool that helps guide agents immersed in the world when they contemplate taking actions on parts of it external to themselves. — Ruediger Schack
Would there be anything at all if there were no human minds according to you? — Janus
Science itself doesn't need qualia or direct experience — green flag
What I already said about the collective nature of mind. Besides, the laws of physics still hold at micro-levels, but they're probabalistic, there is no 'absolute object', therefore no absolute objectivity. — Wayfarer
The answer to that could only be silence. — Wayfarer
How do we explain this if our minds are not somehow collectively coordinated or it is not the mind-independent nature of the physical ? Are there any other explanations you can think of? — Janus
It's what we do.For what we thereby show is that there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which, from case to case of application, is exhibited in what we call “following the rule” and “going against it”.
I don't really see the problem. I fully accept the naturalist account of evolution. All organic life is related, as evolutionary theory demonstrates. — Wayfarer
What I'm rejecting is a philosophical stance which attributes a kind absolute value to the objective domain. — Wayfarer
I mean, even if we study the cosmos right back to nanoseconds after the big bang, it is the observing mind that brings order and perspective to that analysis. From a naturalistic perspective, sure, h. sapiens only came along in the last ten minutes (speaking metaphorically) but it is in that form that all of this becomes somewhat intelligible, — Wayfarer
The validity of the one does not necessarily follow from the validity of the other. There is no necessary relation between a form of subconscious “judgement” in intuition, merely from judgement as a given conscious mental activity in understanding. — Mww
What exactly do you take the claims of metaphysical naturalism to be? — Janus
According to Steven Schafersman, geologist and president of Texas Citizens for Science, metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that proposes that: 1. Nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time; 2. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal physical substance—mass–energy. Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account; 3. Nature operates by the laws of physics and in principle, can be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and 4. the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real. — WIkipedia
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." Your boy recognized the importance of the unknowable, so at least that much can be said in his favour. — Janus
he PDA loop looks like a formalisation of "response to stimulus", were an experience leads to an action. Is that really all that is involved in consciousness? — Banno
The inclusion of "world" worried me at first, it seemed at first Hoffman was assuming the existence of reality. But it appears that what he has in mind here is an iterative process, where "world" is replaced not by space, time and such stuff of our common acquaintance, but with other PDA loops... Not sure what to make of that. — Banno
Ideas similar to MUI theory are found in various forms of idealism. But, as Searle (2004, p. 48) says:
idealism had a prodigious influence in philosophy, literally for centuries, but as far as I can tell it has been as dead as a doornail among nearly all the philosophers whose opinions I respect, for many decades, so I will not say much about it.
This is a simple misunderstanding. MUI theory is not idealism. It does not claim that all that exists are conscious perceptions. It claims that our conscious perceptions need not resemble the objective world, whatever its nature is. — Donald Hoffman
This is a simple misunderstanding. MUI theory is not idealism. It does not claim that all that exists are conscious perceptions. It claims that our conscious perceptions need not resemble the objective world, whatever its nature is — Donald Hoffman
Yeah, sorry it's not clearer. So Conscious Realism takes as fundamental some entity - he posits a particular quantum wave in some places - that can "act" in response to some "experience" which brings about a change in the "world" - and notice here he is already making use of intentional language. — Banno
there is a reality but it's not apprehendable to humans in its 'actual form'. Is this not a version of Kant's noumena, etc? — Tom Storm
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.