Realism: Basic, Objectivism, and Experimentalism

[coberst]

Realism: Basic, Objectivism, and Experimentalism

 

Basic realism entails at least the following characteristics:

• A commitment to the existence of a real world external to human existence

• A link of some kind between human conceptual systems and aspects of reality

• A conception of truth that has some grounding in external reality

• The possibility of stable knowledge of the external world

• The rejection of the idea that any conceptual system is as good as any other

 

Objectivism and experimentalism are two different versions of basic realism.

 

The objectivist paradigm features metaphysics and epistemology that is independent of human cognition, language, and knowledge. Objectivism holds that reality can be modeled as entities, their properties, and interrelationships. Page 159 women fire Lakoff

 

Basic realism only assumes that there is a mind independent reality out there somewhere. The reality that Kant calls the ‘thing-in-itself’ is assumed to exist. This is a fundamental axiom of basic realism philosophy.

 

“Objectivist metaphysics is much more specific. It additionally assumes that reality is correctly and completely structured in a way that can be modeled…in terms of entities, properties, and relations…this structure exists, independent of any human understanding.”

 

Objectivists further assume that thought is merely the manipulation of abstract symbols. The assumption is that the brain functions much like the computer. The computer manipulates symbols in a specific manner and the meaning of the symbols is determined by the user.

 

Objectivists assume that words and mental representations, i.e. symbols, obtain their meaning from a correspondence with entities and categories in the world.

 

Objectivism holds the view that there are entities in the world that naturally fall into categories. It is also held that there exist logical relationships between categories that are purely objective, i.e. that have no subjective component, i.e. that are completely independent of any minds, human or otherwise (with the exception of God of course).

 

Experimentalism is a name given by Lakoff and Johnson to SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) in their book “Philosophy in the Flesh”. Contrary to objectivist view that the body has nothing important to do with human thought or categorization SGCS characterizes meaning in terms of embodiment.

[jedaisoul]

Objectivism and experimentalism are two different versions of basic realism.

But not the only two. Indeed I'm not even sure if they could be considered "main branches" of realism.

 

Objectivism holds the view that there are entities in the world that naturally fall into categories. It is also held that there exist logical relationships between categories that are purely objective, i.e. that have no subjective component, i.e. that are completely independent of any minds, human or otherwise (with the exception of God of course).

Objectivism represents the views of Ayn Rand. I've read a brief resume of her philosophy in Wikipedia, and I cannot see that this description of Objectivism is valid. However, I acknowledge that my research is far from conclusive. Have you checked Lakoff and Johnson's claims of what Rand meant by "Objectivism" to see whether they accurately reflect her views?

 

Was the comment "with the exception of God of course", Rand's, L & J's or your own?

 

Experimentalism is a name given by Lakoff and Johnson to SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) in their book “Philosophy in the Flesh”.

The only references to "Experimentalism or Experimental Realism" I can find in Wikipedia relate to Empiricism. Can you suggest any independent commentaries on L & J's work?

 

The main strands of realism/anti-realism I am aware of are:

• Direct Realism - The belief that, in addition to basic realism, we have direct perception of reality.
  
• Indirect Realism - The belief that agrees with basic realism but suggests that we have no direct perception of reality. All perceptions are filtered and modified by the perception process, so are subjective.
  
• Idealism - The belief that reality exists in our minds. There is no "external reality".

Where would you say that "Experimentalism" stands in this respect?

[coberst]

The comment “with the exception of God of course” was my idea. It is based on the fact that often when I have been reading these books the author makes statements “except for the God’s eye view”. It is more of my shot at the author rather than anything else.

 

I must admit that I take Lakoff’s and Johnson’s version of realism as fact. Both of these individuals are far more learned in matters of philosophy than I can ever be. In fact I find that Rand’s objectivism takes on a cultist glow and I cannot force myself to study it. I tried to engage a Rand Objectivist forum once and these people frighten me. I can just see them all wearing brown shirts. In my younger days I was a Young Republican and had contact with many Birchers who gave me the same kind of willies.

 

Experimentalism is revolutionary in that it challenges the whole history of traditional Western philosophy, which takes the objectivist view that reality has nothing to do with the human body. Reality is out there and the independent mind can somehow know that independent reality.

 

I do not know of any studies that do a critique of SGCS. I assume that there are some out there but I expect it will take generations before the theories are debunked or accepted. Therein lay the source of the human destruction. Technology moves at lightening speed whereas the human sciences move at a crawl that takes generations. We can never gain the intellectual sophistication to adapt to our ever changing environment resulting from technology.

 

Experimentalism rejects Idealism and I do not know about Indirect Realism. I suspect experimentalism would say that the problem there is that the words object and subject are misunderstood.

[jedaisoul]

Experimentalism is revolutionary in that it challenges the whole history of traditional Western philosophy, which takes the objectivist view that reality has nothing to do with the human body. Reality is out there and the independent mind can somehow know that independent reality.

 

Experimentalism rejects Idealism and I do not know about Indirect Realism. I suspect experimentalism would say that the problem there is that the words object and subject are misunderstood.

If Experimentalism rejects Direct Realism and Idealism, then that would suggest to me that it a version of Indirect Realism. Looking at the logic, you have two yes/no factors:

1. Reality is out there? - yes/no.

2. Do we directly perceive it? - yes/no.

 

Normally that should lead to four combinations, but in this case, if the answer to question 1 is no, the second question is irrelevant. Therefore there are only three possible answers. Reality is:

1. Out there and we see it directly.

2. Out there and we don't see it directly.

3. Not out there.

 

This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of pure logic. There isn't a fourth option. So Experimentalism is a variant of Indirect Realism?

[coberst]

Jediasoul

 

There is something out there and most people call that thing out there ‘reality’.

 

We do not directly perceive that thing out there that most people call reality, this is to say that the brain operates extensively on the sense data.

 

We do receive sense data from those things out there that people call reality.

 

We do receive sense data from those things out there and most people think that what they see is directly what is out there.

 

Experimentalism would call realty that which is created in the brain as a result of the sense data and the active processing that goes on in the brain.

 

The major difference between the reality of experimentalism and traditional objectivism is the matter of embodiement.

 

Quickie from wiki:

 

Philosophers, cognitive scientists and artificial intelligence researchers who study embodied cognition and the embodied mind argue that the nature of the human mind is largely determined by the form of the human body—that ideas, thoughts, concepts, categories and all other aspects of the mind are shaped by the body: by the perceptual system, by the intuitions that underly our ability to move, by our activities and interactions with our environment, and by the naive understanding of the world that is built into our bodies and brains. The embodied mind thesis is opposed to other theories of cognition, such as cognitivism, computationalism and Cartesian dualism.

[jedaisoul]

There is something out there and most people call that thing out there ‘reality’.

We do not directly perceive that thing out there that most people call reality, this is to say that the brain operates extensively on the sense data.

That is a description of Indirect Realism.

 

We do receive sense data from those things out there and most people think that what they see is directly what is out there.

That is a description of Naiive Realism, which is a form of Direct Realism.

 

Experimentalism would call realty that which is created in the brain as a result of the sense data and the active processing that goes on in the brain.

If so, that is a form of Idealism. Idealists do not reject the existence of reality, they call that which exists in our minds reality.

 

The major difference between the reality of experimentalism and traditional objectivism is the matter of embodiement.

Thanks for clarifying this. It would appear that I was wrong. If what you say is true, Experimentalism is a form of Idealism, not Indirect Realism.

[coberst]

 

Thanks for clarifying this. It would appear that I was wrong. If what you say is true, Experimentalism is a form of Idealism, not Indirect Realism.

 

I am sorry to hear that. Please do not settle for that conclusion. This is a complex and very imporatnt matter and cannot be understood through a few paragraphs in a forum.

[jedaisoul]

I am sorry to hear that. Please do not settle for that conclusion. This is a complex and very imporatnt matter and cannot be understood through a few paragraphs in a forum.

I agree that the detailed perspective of a specific philosophy may not be expressed in a few paragraphs, but the overall view of reality it expresses depends solely on the answer to two yes/no questions:

1. Does reality exist outside our perception of it? - yes/no.

2. Do we have direct perception of that reality? - yes/no.

 

There are, and can only be, three answers to these questions because the second question is contingent on the first. Those answers correspond to the categories: Direct realism, Indirect realism and Idealism.

 

That is simple logic.

 

The only argument against that categorisation that I can see is the possibility of a third answer to question 2:

Do we have direct perception of that reality? - yes/no/sometimes.

If we accept that as valid, then, arguably, it allows a fourth position, somewhere between direct and indirect realism: Sometimes direct. However, I am not aware of anyone actually proposing that as a valid viewpoint. Also, I believe that it would be deeply problematic.