What is naturalism?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Certainly I can.
...

Then do so.

 

[MikeF]

Then do so.

In a collaborative manner, let's explore solipsism. As a starting point, I have provided the Wikipedia definition:

Solipsism (; from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

Does this meet with your understanding and definition of solipsism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In a collaborative manner, let's explore solipsism. As a starting point, I have provided the Wikipedia definition:

Solipsism (; from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

Does this meet with your understanding and definition of solipsism?

No, it doesn't meet my understanding of solipsism. You have to combined it with the-thing-in-itself: A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.
Objective reality in the strong sense is unknowable and unexperienceable, but there none the less.

It is so, because all of my experiences are not mine to control. Some come to me and I can't control them. They come from objective reality, so I know the following: I exist with my experiences and the experiences, which come to me exist. So solipsism is in the ontological sense not correct. Solipsism in the epistemological sense is in practice correct. The only "things", I can know of, are processes in my mind. E.g. that I can make of the law of non-contradiction.

So to sum up. The world consists of 2 categories in regards to a human mind: The subjective and the objective. That in the mind and that independent of the mind.

 

[MikeF]

No, it doesn't meet my understanding of solipsism.

Great, so we can chuck solipsism out of the discussion and focus on what you actually believe.

... the-thing-in-itself: A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, ...

The words quoted here I can get behind. Not pulling in all of Kant's philosophy, just focusing on the words. Without human beings there is a reality. Reality is whatever it is, and without us, it just keeps on humming along, doing its thing. And it is this, reality, that we are trying to understand.

postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.
Objective reality in the strong sense is unknowable and unexperienceable, but there none the less.

As we have established, reality, is what it is. There is no objective reality. There is no non-objective reality. Reality is all that is real and existent. Full stop. The fact that human beings currently do not have a complete picture of reality, has nothing to do with reality, but rather to do with us. Don't use qualifiers on reality, use them on human beings ability to perceive. Do we completely understand reality? No. Is reality unknowable and not experienceable? Of course not. We experience reality all the time. We may not appreciate all the subtleties of what we are experiencing, but we experience nonetheless. Knowing a part does not mean unknowable. We don't know whether some distant future human beings will develop the capacity to fully know reality. And of course there is this tact: How do you know about that which is unknowable, and that this unknowable has the property of unknowability, if in fact, it is unknowable?

It is so, because all of my experiences are not mine to control. Some come to me and I can't control them. They come from objective reality, so I know the following: I exist with my experiences and the experiences, which come to me exist.

Sorry, this does not make sense.

So solipsism is in the ontological sense not correct. Solipsism in the epistemological sense is in practice correct. The only "things", I can know of, are processes in my mind. E.g. that I can make of the law of non-contradiction.

Solipsism is incorrect for any application. As to what we know, and how we know it, you need to start with the neurosciences. I can't explain all of neuroscience here. In short, our central nervous system is a biological computer. We perceive through our biological senses, and that information is processed by the central nervous system. The way you think, memories, emotions, can all be altered by manipulating the central nervous system. Some behaviors we exhibit are pre-wired, instinctual behaviors. Whatever concept of the self you have at this moment can be changed or corrupted by physical (including chemical, hormonal) manipulation of the central nervous system. Every brain is unique, like a snowflake or fingerprint. The physical patterns and number of neurons for all central nervous system structures are unique to each individual.
In addition, what we think and feel is affected by the environment in which we are raised, how we are socialized and indoctrinated in beliefs.
In short, we are imperfect observers and analyzer of the world around us.
How do we know anything is real? Consistency of observation. Not only of our observation, but comparing our observations with others demonstrates greater consistency and therefore strengthens the conclusion. The greater the number of observations, held by greater numbers of people, over extended periods of time, the more sure and confident we are that the observation reflects an actual aspect of reality. Building a picture of reality in this way works. We are able to see patterns more accurately, better analysis through multiple analyzers, and consequently make reliable predictions on how the world around us works. We are building a knowledge base of reality incrementally. And look at our success. Compare our base of knowledge to any previous generation. This is how we know things. We can't trust ourselves to always be logical, unbiased, or even sane. We must get out of our own head and look at all the available information, and judge that information on the strength of its consistency.

So to sum up. The world consists of 2 categories in regards to a human mind: The subjective and the objective. That in the mind and that independent of the mind.

As I have shown, the world consists of only one category and that is reality. Each "mind" is self-contained in its unique biological hardware, fully dependent on that hardware. By embracing what we are and rejecting artificial constructs of what we are, we avoid being trapped and limited in illusion, and instead, more able to reach our full potential.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

As I have shown, the world consists of only one category and that is reality. Each "mind" is self-contained in its unique biological hardware, fully dependent on that hardware. By embracing what we are and rejecting artificial constructs of what we are, we avoid being trapped and limited in illusion, and instead, more able to reach our full potential.

There are at least 2 categories and you are using both: Accepting versus rejecting. That has nothing to do with those 2 exact words and here are the test of your claim:
You: the world consists of only one category and that is reality.
Me: No, not in practice because we can individual think differently and we all operate with two kinds of results - makes sense and doesn't make sense. To claim that these 2 are the same category is absurd, because that all of this is true:
The world is nothing but reality as one category and the answer that reality is more one category, is thus also true. I.e. we end here with this the world is one and not one category, because you divide in practice the world into 2 kinds: Makes sense and doesn't make sense.

You are doing the rookie mistake of cognitively in your mind trying to reduce the world down to one sense. The world can be described with only one property, one sense, one kind, one class or what ever. You are in effect saying that the world is the set of all members of the set and all members share one characteristic. But that is in practice not the case:
So in practice the world consists of many different categories and we are playing an old one:
You are in effect making a normative rule of human behavior in regards to the words real, truth, existence, evidence and so on. You only subjectively accept objective evidence. That is your rule. The joke is that for the category of objective, your rule is subjective.

So here is what I have learned as I have being doing this kind of game with your kind for over 20 years now: The "we" you claim, is a limited "we". It doesn't not consist of all humans and it relies on the acceptance of the following:
For all normative rules of how to speak of reality, i.e. to speak is a human behavior, we must all speak of the world as you do and use your subjective cognition and reduce the world down to your rule: Only the objective matters.
That is your subjective rule and you use it to reject all other subjective cognition of how to make sense of the world.
In effect you subjectively reject all other models of the world, which are not fully objective, except your own subjective version. Only the objective matters, but that is subjective and the only kind of subjectivity allow. Namely how you are subjective.

Hi MikeF. You are making a rookie mistake in philosophy and indeed science. You think that e.g. for real all kinds of real are the same:
Imagine this. Now this is not real, but it is real that you can imagine it. Imagine a pond, a small piece of water. In it are 2 ducks. One, a real duck and the other one is not real, since it is a decoy duck. But it is a real decoy duck.

The joke is that you imagine that you can in effect reduce all down to being objective, but you can't, because in effect you are making a subjective normative rule, we must all follow. So here is my answer to you.
I can use other subjective rules than you and that is real, exists and it is true. It is a fact of how reality works that we are in effect thinking differently and that difference can't be made the same category as exactly the same.
You are trying to avoid cognitive relativism and all I have to do, is to think differently than you. That is the actual falsification of your one category.
You: All that exists, is reality.
Me: No!!! Because you can't reduce the word down to X. The world is X, simply means that I answer non-X.

So you in effect answering that I am thinking in a wrong manner, but then you admit there is right and wrong. And you can't make them the same.
"As I have shown, the world consists of only one category and that is reality."
Me: Wrong.
Now you are looking at a difference in thinking and you can't make the difference a case of same. You can't avoid cognitive relativism.
We as different individually do this differently:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
You subjectively as a measure of definition define the world as one reality and I just answer: No!

The world is the set in time and space of the classes of same, similar and different properties/experiences of something and something else. As long as you try to make of of the world the same, I answer with no as a difference.

You are not a skeptic, because you don't check your own thinking. You subjective make a universal rule, but you don't test it. You want everybody else to accept your subjective cognition. I don't have to, because I am in effect doing in differently.
You are looking at it.
You are in reality and I am not. That is the reductio ad absurdum of One Reality. I just do it differently.

 

[MikeF]

There are at least 2 categories and you are using both: Accepting versus rejecting. That has nothing to do with those 2 exact words and here are the test of your claim:
You: the world consists of only one category and that is reality.
Me: No, not in practice because we can individual think differently and we all operate with two kinds of results - makes sense and doesn't make sense. To claim that these 2 are the same category is absurd, because that all of this is true:
The world is nothing but reality as one category and the answer that reality is more one category, is thus also true. I.e. we end here with this the world is one and not one category, because you divide in practice the world into 2 kinds: Makes sense and doesn't make sense.

You are doing the rookie mistake of cognitively in your mind trying to reduce the world down to one sense. The world can be described with only one property, one sense, one kind, one class or what ever. You are in effect saying that the world is the set of all members of the set and all members share one characteristic. But that is in practice not the case:
So in practice the world consists of many different categories and we are playing an old one:
You are in effect making a normative rule of human behavior in regards to the words real, truth, existence, evidence and so on. You only subjectively accept objective evidence. That is your rule. The joke is that for the category of objective, your rule is subjective.

So here is what I have learned as I have being doing this kind of game with your kind for over 20 years now: The "we" you claim, is a limited "we". It doesn't not consist of all humans and it relies on the acceptance of the following:
For all normative rules of how to speak of reality, i.e. to speak is a human behavior, we must all speak of the world as you do and use your subjective cognition and reduce the world down to your rule: Only the objective matters.
That is your subjective rule and you use it to reject all other subjective cognition of how to make sense of the world.
In effect you subjectively reject all other models of the world, which are not fully objective, except your own subjective version. Only the objective matters, but that is subjective and the only kind of subjectivity allow. Namely how you are subjective.

Hi MikeF. You are making a rookie mistake in philosophy and indeed science. You think that e.g. for real all kinds of real are the same:
Imagine this. Now this is not real, but it is real that you can imagine it. Imagine a pond, a small piece of water. In it are 2 ducks. One, a real duck and the other one is not real, since it is a decoy duck. But it is a real decoy duck.

The joke is that you imagine that you can in effect reduce all down to being objective, but you can't, because in effect you are making a subjective normative rule, we must all follow. So here is my answer to you.
I can use other subjective rules than you and that is real, exists and it is true. It is a fact of how reality works that we are in effect thinking differently and that difference can't be made the same category as exactly the same.
You are trying to avoid cognitive relativism and all I have to do, is to think differently than you. That is the actual falsification of your one category.
You: All that exists, is reality.
Me: No!!! Because you can't reduce the word down to X. The world is X, simply means that I answer non-X.

So you in effect answering that I am thinking in a wrong manner, but then you admit there is right and wrong. And you can't make them the same.
"As I have shown, the world consists of only one category and that is reality."
Me: Wrong.
Now you are looking at a difference in thinking and you can't make the difference a case of same. You can't avoid cognitive relativism.
We as different individually do this differently:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
You subjectively as a measure of definition define the world as one reality and I just answer: No!

The world is the set in time and space of the classes of same, similar and different properties/experiences of something and something else. As long as you try to make of of the world the same, I answer with no as a difference.

You are not a skeptic, because you don't check your own thinking. You subjective make a universal rule, but you don't test it. You want everybody else to accept your subjective cognition. I don't have to, because I am in effect doing in differently.
You are looking at it.
You are in reality and I am not. That is the reductio ad absurdum of One Reality. I just do it differently.

And so here is what you are left with. The foundations of your artificial philosophical universe have crumbled and all that you have left are the playground defenses of calling me names and stating shrilly "I can believe whatever I want to believe!"

I'll wrap this up. Use of the word "category" seems to be a trigger word for you. We humans use "categories" as a way of organizing information. They have nothing to do with reality. Again, take away all the humans and what are you left with? Reality of course. No objective or subjective, just plain old reality. Understanding that is the goal, and I have clearly shown that we have begun to understand reality.

As to human beings being subjective, no duh. We human beings are fallible, biased, closed minded, self-deceiving creatures. But things like aesthetics, morality, beauty are not reality. There is no other plane or existence where these thing reside. I've shown you how we can know reality and how we can mitigate our fallibility and evaluate whether or not what we think and feel about what is real comports with what is know of reality.

I strongly encourage you to leave philosophy behind and start learning about how the world actually works. You will be thrilled and amazed I assure you. Best of luck exploring all that science has to offer!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... Use of the word "category" seems to be a trigger word for you. We humans use "categories" as a way of organizing information. They have nothing to do with reality. Again, take away all the humans and what are you left with? Reality of course. No objective or subjective, just plain old reality. Understanding that is the goal, and I have clearly shown that we have begun to understand reality.
...

So you use world, reality and category together and they have nothing to do with each other.

...
As I have shown, the world consists of only one category and that is reality. Each "mind" is self-contained in its unique biological hardware, fully dependent on that hardware. By embracing what we are and rejecting artificial constructs of what we are, we avoid being trapped and limited in illusion, and instead, more able to reach our full potential.

So reality is a category and has nothing to do with categories.

 

[MikeF]

So you use world, reality and category together and they have nothing to do with each other.
So reality is a category and has nothing to do with categories.

I use lots of different words grouped together in different ways to communicate ideas. As to categories, forget I even mentioned categories. Reality is all that is real and existent. Without you, without me, without any human beings it is still there, indifferent to what any human being may have thought about it. We human beings can imagine things that are not real and do not exist. Whatever we think has to be verified as I have described if it is to be relied upon. Nothing to verify the belief means it is just speculation or imagination.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I use lots of different words grouped together in different ways to communicate ideas. As to categories, forget I even mentioned categories. Reality is all that is real and existent. Without you, without me, without any human beings it is still there, indifferent to what any human being may have thought about it. We human beings can imagine things that are not real and do not exist. Whatever we think has to be verified as I have described if it is to be relied upon. Nothing to verify the belief means it is just speculation or imagination.

So it is real and exists as a human ability, that we can imagine things that are not real and do not exist? Or do we imagine that we have this ability, but it is not real and doesn't exist?

 

[MikeF]

So it is real and exists as a human ability, that we can imagine things that are not real and do not exist? Or do we imagine that we have this ability, but it is not real and doesn't exist?

Again, it is real and exists as it is a function of the central nervous system which is real and exists and in which thoughts and memories are integrated and dependent on the structure and function of the central nervous system.

And of course, no, this idea of reality only imagined is nonsense for all the many reason I have patiently described to you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, it is real and exists as it is a function of the central nervous system which is real and exists and in which thoughts and memories are integrated and dependent on the structure and function of the central nervous system.

And of course, no, this idea of reality only imagined is nonsense for all the many reason I have patiently described to you.

So morality is not real and doesn't exist, but is real and exists as processes in brains?

 

[MikeF]

So morality is not real and doesn't exist, but is real and exists as processes in brains?

Really? Take a moment and think about what you are asking. Morality is not real and existent (both properties required). Thoughts about morality or anything else are not real and existent things independent of the central nervous system that is thinking them.

The universe was chugging along for billions of years before life arrived on this planet. No morality required. If all life ceases tomorrow, all our thoughts and opinions on morality or anything else will disappear ( unless written records survive of course).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really? Take a moment and think about what you are asking. Morality is not real and existent (both properties required). Thoughts about morality or anything else are not real and existent things independent of the central nervous system that is thinking them.

The universe was chugging along for billions of years before life arrived on this planet. No morality required. If all life ceases tomorrow, all our thoughts and opinions on morality or anything else will disappear ( unless written records survive of course).

So your subjective immigration, that only the objective is real and exists, is not real and doesn't exists. You are aware that you only imagine that only the objective is real and exists, but that it is real and exists only because you imagine it. How? Because it is subjectively real and only exists in your subjective mind and thoughts, that only the objective is real and exists.

The joke is that your rule of only the objective is real and exists, is subjective, because it is something that you think subjective.