The Realists' REALITY GAP

I believe the The Realists’ REALITY GAP is a very significant philosophical issue.
To me the The Realists’ REALITY GAP is illusory, it arise only because of the Philosophical Realists’ false beliefs.

This Realists’ REALITY GAP is generated from the following;

[list]1. Philosophical Realists [PRs] believe there is a ‘real’ external reality out there independent of the human mind to be observed, experienced and mapped.

  1. The PRs are only believing based on their experience and perception, which is not ‘what is’ or ‘the perceived’

  2. What [PRs] are experiencing and believing is only an approximation of that external Reality. [2 above].

  3. So there is a GAP between what is the PRs’ supposedly external Reality and their perception and sense data in their minds.

  4. I call this the Reality GAP.[/list:u]

The above can be represented as follows;

Self [cognizer] <— Reality GAP ----> Reality

Because of the Reality Gap as above, one will note the self [cognizer] will never ever get in touch with or realized the real Reality.
If one never ever get in touch with that real Reality, the fact is the PRs are existing in an illusory state of solipsism.

Do you agree there is a Reality Gap if one believes in an independent external reality out there which is eternally out of reach by the cognizer*?

  • note I have not using the term ‘perceiver’ to avoid the difference between ‘perceiver’ and ‘what is perceived’.
    ‘cognizer’ is equivalent to the actualizer or realizer who engages and entangles with emergent reality.

You cannot demonstrate the existence of any external reality without using the mind
But that does not mean that external reality is not actually independent of the mind

To believe that there is a “reality gap”, you must first believe that there is a reality. And that makes YOU a “Realist”, and guilty of your own accusation (big surprise).

I do not think that there is such a thing as a REALITY GAP as REALITY is simply another word for UNIVERSE
And the UNIVERSE can not have a GAP in it but what there is a GAP in is our KNOWLEDGE of the UNIVERSE

I have explained the above in another post but you don’t get it.

I don’t believe in a Reality out there that is independent of the mind, so there is no ‘reality gap’ for me. Understand!

I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interact with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

OTOH, in your case, you are a transcendental realist, i.e. your Reality is beyond your self and reach which you can never really get in touch to actualize it.

It is something like this;

First we have external reality independent of mind;

  1. individual mind independent external reality
    in the above case, the individual recognized a necessary external independent reality.
    The concept of externality is critical for survival to recognize threats from outside one self. If I am in the grassland and I see a pack of lions I will run from it.

but then encompassing externalness, we have,
2. collective mind (individual mind and external reality)

The problem with the Philosophical Realist is they are habitualized only to conscious of 1, i.e. externality, because humans are always focus on the external [inherited from billions of years] to be aware of threats from outside themselves to facilitate survival.
It takes deep philosophical reflection to understand point 2 above. It is not easy to explain in a few sentences but it is along the same principles as how Hume suprised everyone by asserting that is no real principles of causation at all rather the awareness of causation is due to one’s habits and psychology.

Again,

That makes you a Solipsist, which you denied. And your consensus “intersubjectivity” doesn’t get you out of it.

You can’t have both.

You just can’t comprehend it, can you.

It doesn’t matter which KIND of realist you want to be, if you do not believe that there is a reality out there, then you are NOT any kind of realist. And if you DO believe that there is a Reality out there, then you ARE a Realist of one kind or another.

Learn the damn words!

Causation can be empirically determined so there is no need to rely on it psychologically
Although one should avoid making generalisations about reality based on just assumption
Never seeing a black swan does not mean all swans are white only the ones you have seen

Causation appear to very obvious to have an empirical basis but Hume has proven the assertion of causation is due to psychology. If you reflect on it further it is in fact due to psychology.

Straw man!

I don’t believe in your version of ‘Reality out there’ that is independent of humans Framework and System.

You keep interpreting your own views and impose those on me. This problem is due to your shallow and narrow philosophical views and thus cannot understand [not necessary agree] my points.

This has become just too dumb for words.

As everything is experienced by the mind then it can all be attributed to psychology
However that does not mean that nothing cannot be mind independent which it can

The fact is the following;

How can you realize the following point;
However that does not mean that nothing cannot be mind independent which it can
other than merely thinking about it and involving the human mind and this is not restricted to the individual’s mind but the collective shared-minds.

The above is a real philosophical dilemma which one need to recognize and reflect deeply.
It would appear so obvious there must be a mind independent reality but such a conclusion cannot be arrived at without the involvement of the individual and collective human mind.

Philosophically one must recognize and understand [not necessary agree] the above dilemma is a real conundrum which generate a cognitive dissonance.

It is because of the cognitive dissonance that most would prefer the obvious to maintain consonance, i.e. there is an independent external reality.

Btw, I am not insisting you must adopt my views, but merely highlight one need to be aware of and understand [not necessary agree] this real philosophical dilemma.

This reminds me of a joke.

A philosopher and an engineer see a beautiful woman.
Philosopher : If every time I move, I go half the distance to her, I will never reach her. :frowning:
Engineer : If every time I move, I go half the distance to her, soon I will be close enough. :sunglasses:
:character-luigi:

The joke in your philosophical belief, i.e. reality is independent of the subject’s conceptual scheme - see below.

Your ‘realism’ is that of transcendental realism.

OTOH, mine is ‘empirical realism’ where the subject is part and parcel of reality, thus interacting and entangling with reality. In such a case there is no Reality Gap nor half-distances.

So you can’t be wrong about “reality”. That’s interesting. :slight_smile:

I am a human being thus fallible.
If I insist a mirage is a real physical thing based merely on perception, then I am wrong.

Re Empirical Realist versus Transcendental Realist, it is not my idea but Kant’s, note [suggest you read this a few times];

Note the above as highlighted is Philosophical Realism [as claimed].

Can you defend your philosophical position as realistic?

That requires comparison to some standard.

What happens in this case? :

Person A uses framework F and comes to conclusion A.

Person B uses framework F and comes to conclusion B.

So there are two “realities” and they can’t both be right. Or can they?

If one (or both) is wrong then there must be gap between the wrong “reality” and something.

And how does one decide who/what is wrong and right?

I presume both A and B are working on the same thesis. Your above example will not happen with Science and within the Scientific Framework in general.
Within the Scientific Framework, there is no issues with empirical things regarding which theory is right or wrong.

A Scientific theory is true [right] when it conforms to all the requirements and standards of
the Scientific Framework, its assumptions, limitation, processes, etc.
As for speculated scientific theories, it must conform to the Scientific Framework and the elements must all be empirically possible and the final acceptance is based on consensus awaiting evidence to confirm the theory or it remain as it as a speculated theory (e.g. Big Bang Theory].

As I had stated there are many Frameworks and Systems in existence that enable a qualified reality to emerge.
What is critical here is we must assign degrees of credibility to the results from these frameworks. e.g. the majority will agree Scientific theories in general command the highest credibility ratings based on evidence and proofs of its credibility.

Even though Scientific theories in general are highly credible but they are still limited. To add further credibility to scientific theories, they must be complemented with rationality from philosophy-proper.

You example above could apply to the legal Framework;
Example; based on the specific legal Framework of a Nation, in a murder case the prosecutor has one conclusion [guilty] from the defendant’s [not guilty]. Within a legal framework there is a provision for judge[s] or a jury to decide the final legal binding decision of what was the reality [guilty or not guilty].

But within such a framework, there had been many wrong decisions and innocent people had been wrongly charged and even hanged. As such there was a “wrong” reality and a ‘true’ reality.

However whether it is wrong or right, it has to be qualified to that particular framework. There is no way one can generate either a right or wrong reality without being conditioned within a framework.

In the above case there is reality gap between the right or wrong one but whatever the reality GAP, it is always related to conditional realities but not the absolute reality that Philosophical Realists are claiming, i.e. a reality that is independent of the subject conception.