Realism

[dio9]

What is real ? In the 12th century realism was the ancient doctrine of Plato. The universal is real, the general idea denoting a class. Man is more real than Socrates. What do you think is more real the universal Man or the individual man?

[dio9]

I never said fairies are real.

[Divine Insight]

I never said fairies are real.

I understand this. However, you seem to be suggesting that the mere idea of a "universal man" is more real than an actual person. If that's the case, then shouldn't the mere idea of a "universal fairy" also be more real than an actual person?

[dio9]

There are no actual fairies. while there are actual humans. The universal is what every actual human shares.

Some of our pre homo sapient ancestors share some but not all Homo features. Homo Naledi for example shares some Austral Opithecine features , approaching universal but not universal.

Modern human have bigger brains, some actual individuals may have smaller brains but that's the exception. Modern humans universally have a bigger brain, also universally have hands which can use tools , walk upright on two legs , our support hips support this kind of locomotion, we don't gallop on four. We still climb trees but our shoulders and fingers aren't shaped to hang and swing from branches.

These are just some characteristics which are universally human.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

Ghosts are in the general class of "possible beings"... Doesn't make the class OR the individual ghost real. Both are without evidence. Both are false concepts.. doesn't help that we can generalize about ghosts.

The whole CLASS might be bogus.

That's a good point. Fairies are universal too. They all have wings. According to dio9 wings must necessarily be a 'universal' simply due to the fact that birds, and butterflies have wings as well as many other creatures. So wings are a "universal" and fairies have wings. In fact, all the other properties that are assigned to fairies have "universals" in the real world as well. Thus, all the properties that make up fairies are "universal properties".

Therefore if an abstract concept of a "universal man" is real then surely an abstract concept of a "universal fairy" must be just as real.

Fairies are not only ABSTRACT objects, but BOGUS abstract objects. Fairies aren't REAL like humans are. Well, at least, I don't think fairies are very real, OR as real as humans.

When it comes to HUMANS, we KNOW they exist, when it comes to FAIRIES.. no. Particular fairies are just as UNREAL as the general class of all fairies. How is some "universal" property "more real" than a particular instance of the category?

"Universal fairy" and "fairy" are still bogus. Fairies might have "pretend" wings. The wings aren't real, the fairies aren't real, and the general class of fairies does not exist.

If there are NO fairies, then it's ridiculous to say that there are UNIVERSAL ones.

Maybe I'm missing something here. What PURPOSE does it serve to say that something is in a "universal" category if we haven't established that it is real?

What does it mean to say that humanity is more real than one human, or a bunch of humans? One human is real, two humans are just as real, and the whole LOT of them are just as real. I don't GET how the general class of something is more real than an instance of the class.

Doesn't the word "universal" just mean "general" in this context?
I still do not see how a general class is "more" real than a specific member of that general class.

Could you explain that bit?
We have a tree, for example, and a CLASS of objects we call trees.

Can you use that example to demonstrate how the CLASS of trees is "more" real than a single, actual, object that we call a tree?

[Divine Insight]

If there are NO fairies, then it's ridiculous to say that there are UNIVERSAL ones.

But there most certainly are "universal fairies". In fact, if that "abstract class of objects" didn't already exist, then we would have no clue what anyone means by "fairies".

The fact , that something comes to mind when we consider the concept of "fairies" requires that "universal fairies" must necessarily already exist as an abstract concept in the imagination of the human mind.

I was actually using this as an example for Dio9 to show why the abstract concept of "universal humans" isn't anymore real than the example of "universal fairies".

They both exist in precisely the same place. The human imagination. And therefore they both share precisely the same reality. Whether individual humans or fairies really exist has absolutely nothing at all to do with the concept of "universal imagined objects".

Therefore if "universal humans" are said to be real, then "universal fairies" must necessarily also be real.

In short, neither are real in terms of physical reality, yet both are equally real in terms of abstract imagined concepts.

[dio9]

one human can be an example of humanity , but humanity cannot be an example of one human. Perhaps "more real" is not the best word to use to valuate the universal, "more perfect" may better describe the universal .

The question now is , have individual humans created the idea of universal humanity or is humanity the fruit of universal inevitability?

Leibnez might say we are destined to be the creatures we are, the best possible creatures in this best possible world.

Could evolution have done otherwise?

[Divine Insight]

Could evolution have done otherwise?

I think the answer to that is clearly yes. In fact, evolution has done otherwise. And no doubt will continue to do otherwise throughout the history of the universe.

Don't forget, humans are but a blink of an eye in evolutionary time. The dinosaurs were around for 300 million years. Humans have only been around for about 1 million years, and the bulk of that time they were more like apes than modern humans. In fact, one could easily make a good argument that even modern humans are still acting pretty much like apes. In fact, basically all we amount to are apes with technology.

On evolutionary time scales humans may amount to nothing more than a "bad accident" of evolution. Humans could easily become totally extinct in a very short period of time. And then some other creatures would evolve to the top of the heap. Maybe they will fair better?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

If there are NO fairies, then it's ridiculous to say that there are UNIVERSAL ones.

But there most certainly are "universal fairies". In fact, if that "abstract class of objects" didn't already exist, then we would have no clue what anyone means by "fairies".

Universal fairies ONLY exist if there are actual fairies. Please demonstrate that the class you might want to call "universal fairies" is more than pure fiction.

How about the universal class of "delusions"?
Are the delusions REAL?

The general class "delusions" is real, the ACTUAL DELUSIONS aren't.

So, we have a general class for objects that aren't REAL... we can describe to ourselves things that aren't REAL. Bravo. I call the class of things that aren't real.. UNREAL.

The fact , that something comes to mind when we consider the concept of "fairies" requires that "universal fairies" must necessarily already exist as an abstract concept in the imagination of the human mind.

I agree that humans have abstract concepts. Big deal. Some of those abstract concepts aren't REAL.

I was actually using this as an example for Dio9 to show why the abstract concept of "universal humans" isn't anymore real than the example of "universal fairies".

Then you are wrong. We can help you by SHOWING A LARGE AMOUNT OF HUMANS. There are no fairies to show, you, alas!

They both exist in precisely the same place. The human imagination.

Sorry, most humans I know live on EARTH with the rest of us. Do you need EVIDENCE that humans exist? CONCEPTS are in the mind. SOME CONCEPTS are about things that are purely imaginary. Humans are not purely imaginary. Fairies are ( as far as I can tell ).

And therefore they both share precisely the same reality.

If you think that fairies are as real as humans, then... I will disagree with you.

Whether individual humans or fairies really exist has absolutely nothing at all to do with the concept of "universal imagined objects".

However, there are abstract imagined objects that are false, or worse, meaningless.

The difference between HUMANS and FAIRIES is that we can ONLY IMAGINE fairies. We can INTERACT with humans in other places than just the IMAGINATION.

It's useful to know what is real or not.

Therefore if "universal humans" are said to be real, then "universal fairies" must necessarily also be real.

Not at all. It's ridiculous to me that a grown-up would write something like ""universal fairies" must necessarily also be real".

There ARE no fairies ( as far as I can tell ) AND
there are NO SET of fairies. The set of all fairies is EMPTY.

The set of "imagined abstract concepts " INCLUDES concepts that are about things that are not real.

In short, neither are real in terms of physical reality, yet both are equally real in terms of abstract imagined concepts.

No, humans are real. Fairies are not real. We can imagine things that are real, but SIMPLY imagining them does not MAKE them real.

3 different classes of Abstract Imagined Concepts

a) Abstract imagined concepts might be TRUE.
b) Abstract imagined concepts might be FALSE.
c) Abstract imagined concepts might be MEANINGLESS.

Humans are true imagined concepts.
Fairies are false ones, and possibly quite meaningless.

There ARE differences between abstract imagined concepts, some are meaningless, some are of true real objects such as humans, and some are of unreal fantasy objects, like fairies.

The abstract imagined concepts "human" and "fairies" are NOT alike:

1) Let's try the abstract concept "tree".
There are actual, real trees. AND we can imagine trees, and then generalize about trees. HOWEVER, a tree is an actual real thing. A tree is MORE than imaginary.

2) Let's try the abstract concept "fairy".
There are no actual, real fairies. AND we can imagine fairies, and then generalize about fairies. But please notice: at no time is a fairy an actual real thing.

At no time is the general class "fairies" more than imaginary.

3) Therefore.

Trees are MORE than imaginary and fairies are ONLY imaginary.

4) And therefore, the abstract concept of FAIRIES is only imaginary, and is NOT the same as the abstract concept "trees".

Change the word "trees" for "human" and you have the disproof of your argument.

[Divine Insight]

Universal fairies ONLY exist if there are actual fairies. Please demonstrate that the class you might want to call "universal fairies" is more than pure fiction.

I don't need to because I never claimed any such thing. Evidently you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the class of any imagined universal concept is indeed nothing more than imagination. And therefore the class of "universal humans" is no more real than the class of "universal fairies".

I agree that humans have abstract concepts. Big deal. Some of those abstract concepts aren't REAL.

None of those abstract concepts are real. At best, they vaguely describe some real phenomena and most likely do a very poor job of that as well.

Then you are wrong. We can help you by SHOWING A LARGE AMOUNT OF HUMANS. There are no fairies to show, you, alas!

So what? Showing a large amount of humans does not constitute producing a "universal human".

So you haven't gotten any closer to producing an imagined concept of a "universal human".

The term "universal human" does not mean, "The collection of all humans".

Sorry, most humans I know live on EARTH with the rest of us. Do you need EVIDENCE that humans exist? CONCEPTS are in the mind. SOME CONCEPTS are about things that are purely imaginary. Humans are not purely imaginary. Fairies are ( as far as I can tell ).

Show me a "universal human" that exists on Earth.

If you think that fairies are as real as humans, then... I will disagree with you.

And rightfully so. But I never even remotely implied that. So you aren't even arguing with me. You are arguing with a gross misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

Don't forget, Dio9's original proposal was obviously NOT intended to equate the ideal of "Universal Human" to nothing more than the actual physical collection of humans that actually exist. For if that's what Dio9 meant then it would not follow that humans must be "designed" based upon this preexisting "universal human".

However, there are abstract imagined objects that are false, or worse, meaningless.

All imagined abstract objects are false. At the very best you can lay claim to having imagined an existing object perfectly. But you'd probably be kidding yourself if you believe that you could even do that.

Not at all. It's ridiculous to me that a grown-up would write something like ""universal fairies" must necessarily also be real".

But that's not what I wrote.

I wrote, "Therefore if "universal humans" are said to be real, then "universal fairies" must necessarily also be real.

It's a conditional statement that can only be true if the proposition is true.'

I am taking the position that the imagined concept of "universal humans" is not real. Especially in the way that Dio9 requires. Dio9 requires for "universal humans" to exist totally independent of any real human because he's claiming that real humans are designed on this preexisting template of universal humans.

Otherwise, his argument holds no water. If we allow the abstract concept of universal humans to only exist as an abstract concept of a group of already existing humans, then it can hardly be said that this abstract concept preexisted humans and determined how they must be designed.

Humans are true imagined concepts.

I question anyone's ability to truly imagine any human perfectly.

In fact, people you think you know very well are most likely not even as you imagine them to be. You're very perception of them is most likely biased and distorted in several ways.

There ARE differences between abstract imagined concepts, some are meaningless, some are of true real objects such as humans, and some are of unreal fantasy objects, like fairies.

You have clearly not been following this thread.

Are you then saying that you agree with Dio9 that there exists a real imagined concept of universal humans that has objective reality that is totally separate from any actual real humans and is basically being used by evolution to design humans?

This also requires that this imagined concept of universal humans exists somewhere other than in the human imagination. And it must also exist totally independent of any actual humans. Otherwise how could it be claimed that humans are designed based on this universal human?

I think you better go back and re-read this thread.

I'm not saying that we humans can't imagine a concept modeled after existing humans. Sure we can. But that hardly implies that this concept has objective reality that could be used by evolution to design humans before they ever existed.

What I am saying is, If we allow for that, then we must also allow for an imagined preexisting abstract concept of fairies to also exist that could be used by evolution to create fairies. You wouldn't need any preexisting real fairies for that anymore than you would need preexisting real humans to design humans from scratch.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 29 by Divine Insight]

Universal fairies ONLY exist if there are actual fairies. Please demonstrate that the class you might want to call "universal fairies" is more than pure fiction.

I don't need to because I never claimed any such thing. Evidently you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Evidently I am not understanding what you're saying. It happens to me all the time ( especially in THIS forum ) that I don't have a CLUE what people are telling me.

I'm saying that the class of any imagined universal concept is indeed nothing more than imagination.

Ok, I agree that what is IMAGINED is not real. I at least understand THAT bit of your argument. What is IMAGINED is imaginary. I agree with that. But SOME things that are imagined are true things, some things that are imagined are FALSE, and some things that are imagined are MEANINGLESS.

And therefore the class of "universal humans" is no more real than the class of "universal fairies".

I don't agree with the way you express yourself. I have trouble understanding propositions that are even the TEENIEST bit ambiguous. And your statement above is making my head zing.

Humans ARE more real than fairies. The CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy, and the concept of a UNIVERSAL HUMAN is more real than the concept of a UNIVERSAL FAIRY.

Does that make any sense to you? If not, what am I missing? If you can explain it to me so that I can understand it, then you have explained yourself EXCEEDINGLY well, and most people should be able to as well. If you want to reach as wide an audience as possible, then start with the LOWEST common denominator, ME.

I agree that humans have abstract concepts. Big deal. Some of those abstract concepts aren't REAL.

None of those abstract concepts are real. At best, they vaguely describe some real phenomena and most likely do a very poor job of that as well.

Ok, you don't think that concepts are real. Now we need a definition for what you think is real, and how concepts don't enter into reality. I think that's a very big task. I think that human thoughts are REAL events, that REALLY happen. Even I have thoughts and can at times, think abstractly. These thoughts I take to be real as any other kinds of thoughts. I think that thoughts are real. You don't seem to agree.

I'd like to know your position on that, if possible.

Then you are wrong. We can help you by SHOWING A LARGE AMOUNT OF HUMANS. There are no fairies to show, you, alas!

So what? Showing a large amount of humans does not constitute producing a "universal human".

My humble point was to show that we CAN'T SHOW YOU ONE SINGLE fairy.

So you haven't gotten any closer to producing an imagined concept of a "universal human".

It's not my concept. But ANY concept of what it is to be human is going to be WAY more real than a concept of what it's like to be a FAIRY. LOL... hardee har har har

The term "universal human" does not mean, "The collection of all humans".

I never contended that it did.

Sorry, most humans I know live on EARTH with the rest of us. Do you need EVIDENCE that humans exist? CONCEPTS are in the mind. SOME CONCEPTS are about things that are purely imaginary. Humans are not purely imaginary. Fairies are ( as far as I can tell ).

Show me a "universal human" that exists on Earth.

I can't "show" you a concept. What I CAN show you are the HUMANS who have these concepts. I can't show you any fairies or CONCEPTS that fairies might have at all.

If you think that fairies are as real as humans, then... I will disagree with you.

And rightfully so. But I never even remotely implied that. So you aren't even arguing with me. You are arguing with a gross misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

That I grossly misunderstand you is a TRUE statement.

Don't forget, Dio9's original proposal was obviously NOT intended to equate the ideal of "Universal Human" to nothing more than the actual physical collection of humans that actually exist.

Now, you grossly misunderstand MY position.
Isn't this FUN?

For if that's what Dio9 meant then it would not follow that humans must be "designed" based upon this preexisting "universal human".

No idea what that means, either. I will let him speak for himself.
If he so chooses.

However, there are abstract imagined objects that are false, or worse, meaningless.

All imagined abstract objects are false. At the very best you can lay claim to having imagined an existing object perfectly. But you'd probably be kidding yourself if you believe that you could even do that.

And there we go.. you say that ALL imagined abstract objects are false. Now, I need to ask you for what you mean by the word "FALSE". You don't seem to use it the same way that I do.

Also, I don't imagine that I can imagine ANYTHING perfectly, as I am a very IMPERFECT individual.

Not at all. It's ridiculous to me that a grown-up would write something like ""universal fairies" must necessarily also be real".

But that's not what I wrote.

I wrote, "Therefore if "universal humans" are said to be real, then "universal fairies" must necessarily also be real.

That's what I said you said. You said that "universal fairies" must necessarily also be real.

It's a conditional statement that can only be true if the proposition is true.'

Its a false conditional statement. I would categorize the statement as a form of "false dichotomy". You would have to prove that it IS true that universal fairies and universal humans are the same, and are real with the same meaning of "real".

I am taking the position that the imagined concept of "universal humans" is not real.

And you have not convinced me that your position makes sense yet, so I can't agree with your position. It would be very interesting to me if you could, as I would have learned something new.

Especially in the way that Dio9 requires. Dio9 requires for "universal humans" to exist totally independent of any real human because he's claiming that real humans are designed on this preexisting template of universal humans.

I am going to have to ask Dio9 to explain his requirements for himself, if he so chooses. I don't want second hand information. I am currently in debate with you and not some other person.

You say that the category "universal human" and "universal fairy" are identical. I am not yet convinced that you have made your case, but maybe that speaks more to my intelligence than your ability to make a good case in this matter.

Humans are true imagined concepts.

I question anyone's ability to truly imagine any human perfectly.

Who brought up perfection, all of a sudden? It sure wasn't ME. But I also have to question anyone's ability to truly imagine ANYTHING AT ALL perfectly.

In fact, people you think you know very well are most likely not even as you imagine them to be. You're very perception of them is most likely biased and distorted in several ways.

Agreed. I make all kinds of mistakes, but it's NOT a mistake to think that there is a general category called "human" but it WOULD be a tremendous mistake if I were to say that there is a general category called "fairy".

There are humans, there aren't any fairies ( as far as I know )

There ARE differences between abstract imagined concepts, some are meaningless, some are of true real objects such as humans, and some are of unreal fantasy objects, like fairies.

You have clearly not been following this thread.

Are you then saying that you agree with Dio9 that there exists a real imagined concept of universal humans that has objective reality that is totally separate from any actual real humans and is basically being used by evolution to design humans?

I am not concerned with Dio9's argument at all right now, as I am concerning myself with YOURS.

Please make the case for me that the category "universal human" is the SAME as the category "universal fairy", or lets drop it.

DO you want to drop this debate ?

I think you better go back and re-read this thread.

We can drop it if you can't prove that your argument works.

I'm not saying that we humans can't imagine a concept modeled after existing humans. Sure we can. But that hardly implies that this concept has objective reality that could be used by evolution to design humans before they ever existed.

I think that concepts have objective reality. Please define what you MEAN by "objective reality". I don't have a clue, right now.

What I am saying is, If we allow for that, then we must also allow for an imagined preexisting abstract concept of fairies to also exist that could be used by evolution to create fairies. You wouldn't need any preexisting real fairies for that anymore than you would need preexisting real humans to design humans from scratch.

You seem to be saying a bit more than that. You seem to be saying that:

1) Concepts aren't "objectively real".
2) The concept "universal human" is identical to the concept "universal fairy".
3) The imagined concept of "universal humans" is not real.
4) All imagined abstract objects are false.

Let me re-iterate one of MY main points:

Humans ARE more real than fairies. The CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy, and the concept of a UNIVERSAL HUMAN is more real than the concept of a UNIVERSAL FAIRY.

Put another way:

The concept of a universal human is more real than the concept of a universal fairy BECAUSE the CONCEPT of a human is more real than the CONCEPT of a fairy BECAUSE a human is more real than a fairy.

(as far as I know)