Let me be blunt: if you think testimony isn’t evidence, then you’re not just wrong—you’re being selectively inconsistent. You accept testimony as evidence all the time: in courtrooms, in history books, in journalism, in scientific discovery. Much of what you believe about the world has been passed to you through other people’s words. Testimony is a fundamental mode of knowing. That’s not a fringe claim; that’s epistemology 101. — Sam26

There is testimony and then there is testimony. The kinds of testimony you say we all accept is expert testimony which has been tested, documented and peer-reviewed. The testimony you are citing is not of the same kind.

Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is. — Banno

Right...as I seem to remember Hegel putting it: "The same old stew, reheated".

That's very cute! And apt in a way I find I can't articulate.

Idealism is the predominant metaphysics in western society. Surprise, surprise! — Metaphysician Undercover

That seems to be factually incorrect at least when it comes to philosophers: https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all

I have been arguing that the picture given by empiricism, the supposed "empirical reality", is incorrect, false and misleading. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't seen any argument for that conclusion. Can you briefly state what " inconsistencies, problems, failures" are to be found with empiricism? Be concise, no hand-waving.

To your whole post :up:

That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts. — Banno

"Do you want me to be Frank? I'll be Ernest if you'd rather" Benny Hill.

It's "reliability" is relative, and context dependent, so your dismissal is just an attempt to avoid the reality that it answers your question, regardless of whether answering your question gets us anywhere or not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's grant for the sake of argument that (intellectual) intuition sometimes might give us an accurate picture of the nature of reality ("reality" here meaning something more than mere empirical reality, that is not merely things as they appear to us, but rather some "deeper" truth metaphysically speaking). How do we tell when a particular intuition has given us such knowledge?

I won't respond to the rest of your post as it seems like either sophistical nonsense or inaccurate speculations about my motives.

Hmm, seems like the same accusation was leveled against me. That indicates that the person making the accusation is really the one with the idiosyncratic definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, you and Wayfarer share an idiosyncratic definition, and surprise, surprise! you are both idealists. As I said, if we want to say 'there are noumena' that amounts to saying 'noumena exist' under any ordinary understanding of what the term 'exist' means. We would be saying that noumena are not merely imaginary entities, but are real.

We would be saying that noumena are not merely mind-dependent or perception dependent entities (phenomena) but are mind-independently real entities. Saying, as Wayfarer does, that they neither exist nor do not exist may have some evocative or poetic point, but in a discursive context, it is just nonsense, because in its contradiction it tells us nothing.

How can I perceive something that transcends the category of existence? It's hard enough to perceive things that don't exist! Unless -- as I was trying to suggest -- "the world" and "the in-itself" are not the same. This was the distinction I was drawing between "our world" and "the world of noumena." — J

If there are things in themselves (noumena) which appear to us as phenomena, then we do perceive things in themselves, but we do not perceive them as things in themselves (and this is so by mere definition). It there are noumena then by any ordinary definition of 'existence' they can be said to exist.

@Wayfarer wants to insist that his own idiosyncratic definition of 'existence' is the correct one, which is absurd given that the meanings of terms are determined by (predominant) use.

I can give you a more common example. Suppose we can agree to "love and beauty cannot be explained by logic." It does not follow then that "love and beauty involve contradictions," or that "to say one is in love, one must affirm a contradiction." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Such a weak analogy! Many, probably most, people experience love and beauty. They are simply not governed by logic―not things we use logic to understand―we understand them by feeling them. The Trinity is a concept―either an illogical, that is self-contradictory, concept or incoherent, and not a concept at all but just a string of words that make no sense.

To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain: — Count Timothy von Icarus

All that quote shows is that God is subject to logic, just like the rest of us. So, not omnipotent.

You are going to be accused of not getting the point, while a coherent explanation of the point will never be forthcoming.

But it's not a rebuttal to the philosophical question: what is the nature of the reality we claim to know? — Wayfarer

Your position entails that we cannot know anything at all about reality "in itself" and I agree with that as far as it goes.. So, we are left with what we know of reality as it appears. We don't know with certainty what appearances tell us outside the context of appearances and I've never claimed otherwise. We simply deal with what seems most plausible.

We certainly do have the faculty of being able to experience.

Again you are wrong. I offer reasoned counterpoints and critiques which you apparently cannot deal with so you resort to insult or you just ignore what I've said. I feel no hostility towards you because I have nothing to defend. The hostility seems to be all from your side. I'm not the one delivering personal attacks, I attack only the ideas, not the person.

I simply express what I think, make the criticisms that I think need to be made. You could try actually engaging the counterpoints and critiques for a change. You might actually learn something. Or if you can successfully refute my objections I will concede as much.

I don't see you engaging with anyone on these forums who disagrees with you.

I see you are offering much the same kind of critique as I have. Let's see how @Wayfarer responds.

This seems a typical obfuscation from you. The evasive slur, when you actually know nothing about my "educational limits" makes you look like a very "poor faith": interlocutor.

Exactly what have I said is both obvious and absurd? Try engaging with others' responses for a change―you might come to understand what they are actually saying.

If all you're saying is that what we experience is mediated by our senses, our bodies and brains, then you are saying nothing controversial.

We can say that because things have their own existences independent of our perceptions, their own existences will not be the just the same as our perceptions and judgements. But you are wont to say that they don't even have their own existences, which makes your position look extremely confused.

Poetic, or perhaps not so poetic, musings. No one denies that children can play nonsense games together.

I asked for a quote from Peirce wherein he say his semiotics were inspired by Augustine.

Experience is not a faculty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Each of the five senses are perceptual faculties, as well as interoception and proprioception. All together they constitute the faculty of experience, not of particular experiences, but of being able to experience.

So-called intellectual intuition does not give us reliable knowledge, it consists mostly of imagination applied to ideas derived from experience.

You are still just blowing hard, and getting nowhere.

Maybe. Likewise, the four gospels correspond to the four elements. Matthew is earth, Mark is fire, Luke is air, and John is water. This, multiplied by the three states: mutable, fixed, and cardinal, equals the number of apostles, the number of the tribes of Israel, and of course, months of the year. There are numbers all over the place, such as the birthmark on my scalp: 666. :grin: — frank

Nice extrapolation!

Relating to a different tradition, Hinduism, the three modes: Cardinal, fixed and mutable can be equated with the trinity of creation, preservation and destruction embodied in the Hindu Trimurti as Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. Of course this is a very different conception than the Christian trinity.

And then we have the rhree Gunas:

The three gunas are fundamental qualities in Indian philosophy that describe the nature of all things:
Tamas: Represents darkness, inertia, and chaos. It is associated with lethargy and ignorance.
Rajas: Signifies activity, passion, and movement. It is linked to desire and restlessness.
Sattva: Embodies purity, harmony, and balance. It is connected to knowledge and enlightenment.

These gunas interact to influence human behavior and the natural world, forming the basis of all creation. Understanding these qualities can help in achieving balance and insight in life.
(I copied and pasted the above because I'm lazy).

Gurdjieff said that man is "third force blind". His three forces he called the Holy Affirming, the Holy Denying and the Holy Reconciling. One example he gave was bread; people think bread is flour and water, but they forget the baking he says. Maybe he got this straight from Hegel, or maybe it is just an inevitable outcome of thinking about how things are for us.

It seems all this trinitarian stuff is basic to the logic of all human experience and thought. As soon as we divide the world into self and other, the third thing of the relationship between self and other becomes obvious. It seems clear that the ideas of creation, preservation and destruction apply to the becoming of all things.

This is factually incorrect. Charles Sanders Peirce's theory of signs is based explicitly on his study of scholastic theories of signs that were developed originally by Saint Augustine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you have a citation where Peirce admits as much? If not it's mere speculation.

This definition is based in human experience. You define "exist" as what is not imaginary. So you base the definition in imagination, and say whatever is not imagination, exists. But that's self-refuting, because your definition is itself imaginary, you are imagining something which is not imaginary, i.e. exists, but by that very definition, it cannot exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

It means that we must go beyond experience if we desire to understand the nature of reality. Since many people believe that truth is limited to what can be known from experience (empiricism), but others do not believe this, then it is very important, and not pointless to note this distinction. — Metaphysician Undercover

You contradict yourself. You say definitions are based in human experience and then go on to say we must go beyond experience, while saying that something beyond human experience cannot exist. This is hopelessly confused.

By what faculty other than experience could we know anything (apart from what is logically necessary) ?

Eventually I'll find the way out, through my trial and error, while you'd be still sitting there thinking everything's fine, until your dying day. — Metaphysician Undercover

Find your way out of what? Do you mean life? If so, you'll find your way out of that on your dying day. Far better to worry about how to live in the meantime.

The most fundamental constituents of the body survive death. @Sam26 seems to be thinking of consciousness, though.

Yes, I'm blowing very hard, just like the wind. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl: You seem more like a sailor whose ship is stuck motionless on a windless sea. You have a set of oars which would give you enough purchase to get you moving, but you don't realize it and instead stand in front of the sails futilely blowing at them.

Well sure, but my point is that the thing referred to here as "it" is a fiction. Therefore all that evidence does nothing for you. — Metaphysician Undercover

'Universe' just means 'the sum of what exists', so it refers to everything that exists, and is thus not a fiction at all.

And if you neatly ignore all the logical arguments against "the universe", insisting that empirical evidence is more important then logical necessity, you'll be restricted to believing in your fictitious story because all the available evidence points that way. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is very confused. What are the "logical arguments against the universe" exactly? Do you perhaps mean that there is no universe apart from the collection of all existing things inclduing spacetime? If so, I haven't denied that.

This definition is based in human experience. You define "exist" as what is not imaginary. So you base the definition in imagination, and say whatever is not imagination, exists. But that's self-refuting, because your definition is itself imaginary, you are imagining something which is not imaginary, i.e. exists, but by that very definition, it cannot exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is just playing with words sophistically. Of course the definition is based in human experience, everything we say is, so your "point" is without a point. The definition of 'existence' is not based in imagination, it is the counterpoint. 'To exist, to be real', only gets its meaning in distinction from 'to be imaginary, to be unreal', just as 'to be imaginary, to be unreal' only gets its meaning from 'to exist, to be real'.

What I dispute is the truth of "the universe". — Metaphysician Undercover

What are you disputing? It's far from clear. Are you claiming that nothing existed prior to humans?

There is much evidence like spatial expansion, and dark matter, to indicate that "the universe" is a failure as a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

On what basis do you claim that spatial expansion and dark matter indicate that the idea of a universe is a "failed concept". What do you mean by "failed concept"? Did spatial expansion and dark matter exist prior to humans according to you?

concepts like "existence", and "universe", are just constructs derived from our experience. They may be completely misleading in relation to the way reality actually is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, it can obviously be said that every concept is derived from experience, in which case noting that is pointless. All our concepts "may be completely misleading in relation to the way reality actually is", but then what could that mean? "Concept', 'misleading', 'in relation to' 'the way reality actually is' are all concepts which we might equally claim to be somehow in error. But then what could that "being in error' even mean and where would that leave us?

I've just challenged anyone to provide a description or definition which isn't based in human experience, or simply begging the question, because i strongly believe that is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet you have failed to give any argument for why we should agree with you. What's your argument? So far you are just looking like a blowhard.

Consistency doesn't imply truth. We can make very consistent fictions. And even when the story is consistent with empirical sensations, truth is not necessitated. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't said it is necessarily true that a Universe of things existed prior to humans existing. I've said that all the available evidence points to its having existed. You seem to be conflating logical necessity with empirical evidence.

Well then, give me an explanation of what it means to exist, which is not based in human experience, or simply begging the question. — Metaphysician Undercover

To exist is to be real, actual as opposed to imaginary. There are two logical possibilities―either the Universe existed prior to humans or it didn't. Neither is logically provable, since both are logical possibilities. We are left with what the evidence points to―which is that the Universe did exist prior
to humans.

It's very clear to me, and it ought to be for you as well, that "existence" refers to the specific way that we perceive our environment, and nothing else. "Existence" is defined by experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not, in my experience, how 'existence' is generally understood, and it is certainly not how I understand it―it is merely your own idiosyncratic, tendentiously stipulated meaning. There is no reason why others should share your prejudices. If you want to live in your own little echo chamber that's up to you.

Don’t you mean perceived, rather than identified.
To be perceived, something merely needs to be witnessed, this does not require identification. — Punshhh

To be perceived is to stand out as a gestalt. To stand out as a gestalt is to be identified, although not necessarily in a linguistically self-reflective sense, since non-linguistically enabled animals are obviously capable of identifying the things that matter to them in their environments.

That also seems about right to me. The thing is, though, that identifying a difference is a rather different exercise from identifying an object. — Ludwig V

I wonder whether there are any free-floating differences that could be identified without identifying what the differences consists in. 'Objects' in the widest sense would include features like colours, textures, tones, smells, tastes and so on, insofar as these are all generally counted as objects of the senses.

I can see how one might want to say that. But "different" is a relation, so it requires two objects to be compared. Of course, from another perspective, those objects might be dissolved into a bundle of differences, which then require a range of other objects to establish themselves. — Ludwig V

:up: It seems we are agreeing.

I think there is some ambiguity around the word perceived. (Which I realised after posting) I was thinking of it meaning something is noticed, but not identified. — Punshhh

To be noticed is to be identified as something―a flash of light, a subtle odour, a patch of colour, something moving, and so on.

But many aspects of that concept indicate to us that it is a misrepresentation of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

All our science is consistent in indicating that there was a universe, galaxies, star systems, planets and on Earth many organisms, plants, creatures long before there were humans. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of that conclusion.

This is highly doubtful. "To exist" is very clearly a concept structured around human experience. If you think otherwise, I'd be interested to see a good explanation of "existence" which wasn't based in human experience. And a simple definition which begs the question would not qualify as a good explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover

"To exist' is a human concept, as are all other concepts. There is nothing about that concept that necessitates it being confined to the human. Given that we all and some animals manifestly perceive the same environments and things in those environments there is no reason to consider that the concept applies only to what humans have experienced. You seem to be conflating two different things―that 'existence' can be understood to be a linguistically generated concept and the range of the application of that concept.

.

The logic of thinking difference involves things which are identified as being different. I don't see how you can escape that.

How can you say there is difference if it is not identified? How is it possible to think difference without thinking (identifying) the things which differ?

More precisely, there can be difference without a prior identity. So how does that work? — Joshs

How could there be difference unless some difference is identified? Identity and difference co-arise―you can't have one without the other.

I copied a couple of paragraphs from the original post, and then added commentary to the effect that it is not being argued that there was no universe prior to observers. — Wayfarer

So, you agree there was a universe prior to observers. What then are we disagreeing about?

The question I’m raising is not whether the universe existed, but what it means to say so. — Wayfarer

It's obvious what it means to say there was a universe prior to observers...it means, if true, that there was a universe prior to observers.

When you say “the cosmos was visible prior to the advent of percipients,” you're smuggling in a category — visibility — that only has meaning within the context of experience. That’s the point I keep returning to. — Wayfarer

It's a lame point though, and nothing is being "smuggled in" because it is simply a truism that everything we say only has meaning within the context of human experience and the judgements we make on the basis of experience. Since it obviously applies to everything there is no point bringing it up. As to visibility, we know what it means for something to be visible, and the idea doesn't depend on it being seen. Similarly we know what it means for something to exist, and it doesn't depend on the existence of humans.

It's about the conditions for meaningful discourse — the structure that allows us to form concepts like “universe,” “visibility,” or “existence” in the first place. I’m not making a deductive claim about what did or didn’t exist. I’m making a transcendental claim about what makes it possible to talk about existence at all. — Wayfarer

The fact that we exist and possess language makes it possible to talk about existence and anything else. As to "meaningful discourse", what makes sense to each of us may differ depending on our preconceptions and assumptions. You speak as though there is a fact of the matter regarding what it could be meaningful to say, but that is simply not true.

You are entitled to say that the idea of existence independent of human experience makes no sense to you, but you cannot justifiably pontificate about what should or should not make sense to others. It is that kind of dogmatic assumption that leads you to think that anyone who disagrees with your stipulations must not understand.

When we forget this distinction, we turn methodological naturalism into a metaphysical doctrine — and mistake the limits of our mode of knowing for the limits of what is. — Wayfarer

The irony is it seems that it is you that wants to restrict "what is" to what humans can know. I allow that all the things we experience have their own existence and had their own existence before there were any humans.

I don’t have the academic credentials to make the cut in a journal of that kind, but I’d suggest that the core argument of Mind-Created World would be regarded as fairly stock-in-trade in that context — not a mistake, but a well-recognized philosophical position. — Wayfarer

Perhaps...I tend to doubt that, but in any case so what?...that there are others who might think as you do doesn't mean much. There are others who think all kinds of things, and the majority of intelligent well-educated people seem to be metaphysical realists. I'm not going to find appeals to authority convincing.

the meaning of philosophy proper, — Wayfarer

The very idea of "philosophy proper" is dogmatic. There is no fact of the matter...it cannot be anything more than your opinion.

.

What I think I see is that conversations on the forum often get stuck around 1) the justification of axioms, 2) accusations of misunderstanding or bad faith, 3) acrimony. It’s as if we’re hard-wired for conflict over difference. The worst offenders seem to call others liars and sophists when they are challenged by difference. — Tom Storm

These are good points Tom. I think people often forget that what they are presenting is merely one perspective. If they react defensively it seems to indicate that they have so much invested in their particular hobbyhorse that critique feels threatening. Hence the accusations of misunderstanding and lack of education.

The irony with the situation between Wayfarer and myself is that I am very familiar with all the arguments he presents, I used to present such arguments myself (and he knows this but does not want to admit it), but I have come to think there is very good reason to question the soundness of the presumptions upon which those arguments are based. He seems to take my critiques as personal attacks, when all I'm doing is expressing genuine objections.

Your capacity for self-delusion is truly remarkable. "Proper grasp" of course means 'understood as Wayfarer the enlightened one does". You apparently have no capacity to understand other perspectives or to deal intelligently with critiques of your stipulative nonsense.

The urge to devour and assimilate what is not oneself. — Jamal

That's an interesting take. Instead of oneself being a small part of the Universe, the Universe must instead be seen as being a small part of oneself.

It must also be a need to have everyone agree with oneself, given that the rejoinder to any disagreement is always predictably "if you don't agree then you must not have understood" coupled with some attempt to cast aspersions on the others' level of education. It's a sorry spectacle...

Don't feel bad. — Jamal

No, he really ought to feel bad.

An unfortunate deductive error inferring from our inability to say with certainty what kind of existence unperceived objects have to a conclusion that there could be no such actual existence, and that saying there is any such existence is incoherent. It's called 'confusing oneself with a truism'; the truism being that it is only minds that can know anything. What is more remarkable is that this confusion is obstinately repeated ad nauseum, making me wonder what the point or motivation for such idiocy could be.

In answer to the second question, the short answer is no. In order to count something as visible it is only necessary to demonstrate that it is capable of being seen. However the best, and arguably only conclusive way to demonstrate that something is capable of being seen is to see it. — Ludwig V

Right, so we know that the cosmos was visible prior to the advent of percipients, otherwise there never would have been any percipients.

On the assumption that "intelligible" means "capable of being understood", is the analogy a good one? Showing that one understands something is a good way of showing that it is capable of being understood; that's a parallel with "visible". But there is also a difference. Seeing something can be completed - one can reach a point at which one has actuallly seen whatever it is. But understanding is (usually) incomplete - there is almost always further that one could go. Usually, we settle for an understanding that is adequate for the context and do not worry about whether our understanding is complete.
So the answer is (as it usually is with analogies) the parallel is partial. Yet it is somewhat strange that we also use "see" to describe understanding as well as vision. So perhaps there is more to be said. — Ludwig V

I'd say there is always more to be seen in the seeing of anything, more and finer detail and also different ways of seeing as per the different ways, for example, different species see things.

When the OP says "a world that is fully real and determinate independently of mind", what could 'determinate' mean in a world containing no perceivers? How could something be determined when there is no one there to determine it? Percipients do determine their objects. If they could not do that they could not survive. It seems to follow that things were determinable , just as they were visible and understandable, but obviously not seen, understood or determinate, prior to the advent of percipients.

As Tom Waits put it: "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy".

As to wokeism; I wonder why there must be such partisan polemic regarding it. Surely there were, and are, real concerns that lead to advocating wokeism as an attempt to deal those problems. No social movement is immune from downsides. Correcting those rather than rejecting the whole of woke culture would seem to be a better strategy. Instead we see more instances of black and white thinking from the ideologues on both sides.

Therefore the whole cannot be causal in its own creation. We can assume that something external puts the parts together, creating the whole, in a top-down fashion, but this would be nothing but what is called "external telos". — Metaphysician Undercover

Genes are generally understood to provide the information that governs the growth, development and functions of organisms. So, it seems you are right that it is not "the whole of the organism" (whatever we might take that to be) that governs its own growth and development. Should genes be considered "external" though?

I’m clear that intelligibility is something that is constituted (“created”?) in the interaction between mind and world. However, our understanding of the world tells us that it has not changed in any radical way since we appeared and that many of the processes now going on must have been going on long before any sentient or intelligent creatures appeared. So is it not reasonable to infer that the world would have been intelligible if there had been anyone around to understand it? (Note that this is a counter-factual, not a blunt assertion.) — Ludwig V

Must the world be understood in order to be intelligible (able to be understood)? As an analogy, must something be seen in order to be counted as visible?

that gives us an easy way to measure bullshit in this thread. See which group is having an easier time defending their position - the group that's having a harder time of it must be right — flannel jesus

First you have to determine which group is having the easier and which the harder time defending their positions. What're the criteria? Which ones do you think are which, and why?

a world that is fully real and determinate independently of mind. — Wayfarer

Can you explain what you take that to mean, if you are implying something beyond "A world that does not depend for it's existence on any or all minds"?

To make this clearer, consider the example you cite of Neptune’s pre-discovery existence. The realist insists: “It existed all along—we simply didn’t know it.” But the claim I'm advancing would point out that what “it” was prior to its discovery is not just unknown, but indeterminate. — Wayfarer

It couldn't have been "indeterminate" if by that you mean indeterminable, because otherwise it could not have been discovered. If "indeterminate" it you means something more that "undetermined' or "indeterminable", then please explain what that additional meaning is.

And finally, the reason this matters is so we do not lose sight of the subject—the observer—for whom all of this is meaningful in the first place. The scientific, objective view is essentially from the outside: in that picture, we appear as one species among countless others, clinging to a pale blue dot, infinitesimal against the vast panorama that scientific cosmology has revealed. But it is to us that this panorama is real and meaningful. So far as we know, we are the only beings capable of grasping the astounding vistas disclosed by science. Let’s not forget our role in that. — Wayfarer

How can the scientific view be "from the outside"? Perhaps you meant "of the outside". Surely all human views of the external world are, by definition "from the inside" (if you want to speak at all in terms of "outside" and "inside"). It's more accurate to say that all views of the world, including human ones, are views of what lies outside the skin of the viewer.

That we are, as far as we know the "only beings capable of grasping the astounding vistas disclosed by science" is a simple truism. I'm puzzled as to what you think the import of these trivial factoids, acknowledged by anyone who thinks about it for a minute, are.

I've been reflecting on a thought: if people were given the chance to do things society and general are considered "bad" or "evil" with no one ever finding out, and with zero chance of anyone suspecting them, most would likely take it(correct me if i am wrong). — QuirkyZen

How could you possibly know that? At best you know (apparently) that you would do those things if you had the chance. Be wary of projecting your own badness onto others.

What might a Davidsonian aesthetic look like? — Banno

I imagine that you would probably be in a far better position than I to give an account of that.

Again I think it (obviously) depends on how you define the term 'art'. I am predisposed to think that examples of good visual art have colour and tonal and textural relationships that form strong, resolved and unified, compositions. Many works of visual conceptual art are not much or even at all concerned with aesthetics, but rather with conveying some idea or other.