Problem of Universals

[PureX]

No. All animated beings experience the existence of a mountain; not just humans

But those experiences aren't "mountains". In most instances there isn't even any awareness of the experience that we call and conceive of as a "mountain".

No. “Real” is a description of things that exist on their own.

"Real" is a concept in your mind. I find it very odd that you can't or won't recognize this.

 

[PureX]

*sigh*

And yet, you refuse to do anything that would bring about your material destruction, if matter exists, don't you?

This is just semantic nonsense. You keep assuming that when you use the word "existence" that it refers to a state that none of us can possibly know: i.e., whatever is or isn't beyond our limited human comprehension. And that's simply illogical.

This is what I find boring about skepticism concerning the material world itself. You guys talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

I'm sorry that you don't find logical reasoning to your liking.

 

[Koldo]

This is just semantic nonsense. You keep assuming that when you use the word "existence" that it refers to a state that none of us can possibly know: i.e., whatever is or isn't beyond our limited human comprehension. And that's simply illogical.

I'm sorry that you don't find logical reasoning to your liking.

*sigh*

Still not walking the walk.

 

[Ostronomos]

Please see my thread Mind=reality=language.

 

[Ostronomos]

But those experiences aren't "mountains". In most instances there isn't even any awareness of the experience that we call and conceive of as a "mountain".

"Real" is a concept in your mind. I find it very odd that you can't or won't recognize this.

You are quite correct.

"Real" is simply a concept that takes a unique linguistic form within the mind. It is through the meta-language of the SCSPL that the word "real" is common to both mind and reality.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's correct. Real is only the physical, what is measurable with scientific instruments.
Shapes and numbers do exist and I believe they exist objectively. But they are abstractions. Unlike constructs they don't go away if nobody believes in them, they can be rediscovered any time by a sufficiently complex mind and they will functionally be the same. In one way they are "more real" than reality as, I believe, they would be the same in any other universe. In other ways they are more like constructs as they only manifest in brains.
You may not agree with ordering them into the unreal but I think you have to agree that they are fundamentally different from the physical world.

You can’t measure or quantity anything without using shapes or numbers, a well defined template of some sort. So if your definition of what is real is that which can be measured, you can only make that judgement based on an abstraction. Something of a paradox, that.

 

[Heyo]

You can’t measure or quantity anything without using shapes or numbers, a well defined template of some sort. So if your definition of what is real is that which can be measured, you can only make that judgement based on an abstraction. Something of a paradox, that.

Counting and measuring are themselves abstractions, therefore you need abstract tools.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Counting and measuring are themselves abstractions, therefore you need abstract tools.

Yeah, that’s my point. You need abstract thought to define what’s real. And abstract thought requires a conscious agent. So which is fundamental, consciousness or the material reality it interacts with? Maybe just pause and consider for a while, before deciding on your answer.

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, that’s my point. You need abstract thought to define what’s real. And abstract thought requires a conscious agent. So which is fundamental, consciousness or the material reality it interacts with? Maybe just pause and consider for a while, before responding.

Consciousness (whatever that is) needs a physical brain. Therefore reality is fundamental to the ideal.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Consciousness (whatever that is) needs a physical brain. Therefore reality is fundamental to the ideal.

I’m not sure the first sentence necessarily infers the second; given that material reality (whatever that is) requires a consciousness to perceive it.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I am a bit confused. The post you responded to was about constructs and you are not with me on those ones? Your threshold is at fantasies as it seems. I guess "genuine feature of existence" is not synonym with "objectively existing". Or do you argue that constructs do objectively exist?

You must have misread the post. I agreed with you.

A lot of things objectively exist. "Constructs"... "physical objects"... "quantum fields"... "mathematical truths." Some things land BOTH in the category of "things that are real" and "things that aren't physical objects"-- which is the realist position. But I did not imply that physical objects that really are there somehow don't exist. Physical objects exist objectively. Any realist will tell you that. In fact, it's usually premise 1 for any argument for realism.

I don't have a "threshold at fantasies." Some things DO exist. Other things do not. That's the basic foundation for realism. Nominalists. on the other hand, have no criteria for things that exist. They say all we are doing is "naming" things. And there is no reality behind those names, except what we "imagine" to be real. I disagree with them.

Yes, sometimes, some things only exist because we've named them. Like when we imagine a magical horse with a horn protruding from its head. But other times, we think of things like GDP of a nation. And this example describes something that is a real feature of the world, even though some folks take it to be some airy-fairy conception that we make after taking a couple of dabs. That couldn't be farther from the truth. GDP is a genuine feature of human reality, whether it has physical properties or not.

 

[Heyo]

You must have misread the post. I agreed with you.

I don't think we agree fully and this post clarifies how.

A lot of things objectively exist. "Constructs"... "physical objects"... "quantum fields"... "mathematical truths." Some things land BOTH in the category of "things that are real" and "things that aren't physical objects"-- which is the realist position. But I did not imply that physical objects that really are there somehow don't exist. Physical objects exist objectively. Any realist will tell you that. In fact, it's usually premise 1 for any argument for realism.

I don't have a "threshold at fantasies." Some things DO exist. Other things do not. That's the basic foundation for realism. Nominalists. on the other hand, have no criteria for things that exist. They say all we are doing is "naming" things. And there is no reality behind those names, except what we "imagine" to be real. I disagree with them.

Yes, sometimes, some things only exist because we've named them. Like when we imagine a magical horse with a horn protruding from its head. But other times, we think of things like GDP of a nation. And this example describes something that is a real feature of the world, even though some folks take it to be some airy-fairy conception that we make after taking a couple of dabs. That couldn't be farther from the truth. GDP is a genuine feature of human reality, whether it has physical properties or not.

Your example of the unicorn and the GDP shows that your threshold really is fantasies. I distinguish four kinds of unreal entities. Ideals are not real but exist objectively. Shapes and numbers will necessarily be discovered by any sufficiently complex brain and they will always have the same properties and relations.
Constructs don't exist objectively. Money (and GDP, as it is measured in Money) is an invention. It exists but it doesn't exist objectively. While you can assign some "reality" or hyper reality to ideals, you can't with constructs.
Money only exists because we agree that it should. If we don't agree it loses all value and meaning. Therefore ideals and constructs are of different categories of unreal (or, for you, different kinds of "real").

 

[Heyo]

I’m not sure the first sentence necessarily infers the second; given that material reality (whatever that is) requires a consciousness to perceive it.

What was the universe like before there were any conscious entities to perceive it?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Your example of the unicorn and the GDP shows that your threshold really is fantasies.

My threshold is "unreal."

Sure, fantasies fit the bill. But so do errors.

 

[vulcanlogician]

What was the universe like before there were any conscious entities to perceive it?

It was like whatever it was like. And the presence of conscious entities would not have changed how it was.

 

[The Hammer]

Neitherist. I am a
Neitherist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What was the universe like before there were any conscious entities to perceive it?

Why do you assume the universe preceded consciousness?

 

[Heyo]

Why do you assume the universe preceded consciousness?

Why do you assume it didn't? We have evidence that brains produce consciousness but the evidence for consciousness without brains is non-existent.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why do you assume it didn't? We have evidence that brains produce consciousness but the evidence for consciousness without brains is non-existent.

Where is that evidence observed, assessed and evaluated, if not in the mind? Given that evidence is - self evidently - a concept observed in the mind, how could it exist without consciousness?

 

[PureX]

What was the universe like before there were any conscious entities to perceive it?

How would it matter?