A B C Realities

In my previous posts, Are Mountains Real? and Roundness & What is Real, I employed the philosophical definition of realness. But this differs from the normal use of the term “real,” and that might be confusing to some readers.

In Roundness & What is Real, I explained

Whenever philosophers (or anyone for that matter) asks if something is real, what they are actually asking is a different question: where does something exist? The philosopher’s question, Is roundness real? is, in other words, the scientist’s question, Where does roundness exist?

In general, something might exist outside of us (outside of our thinking and observing), or it might exist within our thinking and observing. When philosophers debate realism, they are debating whether or not something exists outside of our thinking and observing—out there in what we usually refer to as the physical world.

Of course, we also exist within the physical world, and this means that our thinking andobserving exists within the physical world as well. Even our nightly dreams occur within the world, since it is where we exist. In this sense, even our dreams, hallucinations and delusions are real.

But saying that everything we experience or imagine is “real” deprives the word of any value. What is valuable is to figure out what we (our bodies, brains and minds) bring to the table when we observe, experience, think about the world, versus what’s out there independently of us.

Philosophers employ the terms “real” and “realism” to debate this important issue.

Thus if you conclude that roundness is something which exists wholly independent of us as bodies, brains and minds, then you believe roundness is real. If you believe mountains exist wholly independent of us as bodies, brains and minds, then you believe mountains are real.

In my articles, I argued the opposite: that in fact roundness and mountains are dependent on us for their existence, and thus are not real in this philosophical sense. Again, real here means “exists in the observer independent world independently of our bodies, brains and minds”.

But if something is not real in this sense, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Mountains aren’t real, but they do exist as common human experiences. They are “real” in this latter sense, as common human objects of experience. Same with tables, chairs, roundness, etc.

One might also note that humans commonly create pseudo “real” things, and do so knowingly and deliberately. A nation is such. Governments and their laws are such. Political borders don’t have real existence, but do have this sort of (hopefully) agreed upon existence.

Is a nation a real thing? It certainly doesn’t have external observer-independent existence. But nations do exist in human consciousness, taken collectively. You might say, they exist if we think and say they do, and if we act accordingly.

What exists, and where does it exist?

My position is that there exists an external, observer-independent reality, which we call the physical world. Thus I embrace external-world realism.

Our biological bodies exist within this observer-independent world (in the sense of being external to our brains/minds when they serve as observers). Thus our bodies are real.1

I embrace naturalism, which is the claim that the external, observer-independent reality is primary. Which is to say, it existed first and biological entities like us evolved later. And then some biological entities like us evolved brains. And then some biological entities like us evolved brains that began producing consciousness.

In my version of naturalism, consciousness evolved as a stand-in for the observer-independent reality. Sensations and feelings are produced by our brains, and present a model (simulacrum) of the world which our brains use to make better decisions for our survival.

And then some biological entities like us evolved brain-producing consciousness which went a step beyond sensations and feelings, and began producing thoughts, concepts and understandings. Tacked onto our stand-in, these enable a continually-improving model of the world and even more complex decision-making. (And of course enable the creation of pseudo “real” things like nations, governments, political borders, laws, etc.)

Put in a chart, the worldview I’m presenting looks something like this:

“A” Reality – Primary physical ever-changing stuff existing now, about which we can only say that it is not “B” or “C”

“B” Reality – Sensual consciousness, the simulacrum created by conscious organisms to “stand in” for “A” reality so that they can successfully survive, evolve and thrive within “A” reality [cf. Parmenides’ way of appearances]

“C” Reality – The underlying structure (logical, mathematical) of “B” reality, which itself is discernible and knowable using the expansion of consciousness (“B” reality) available to human organisms because of their ability to introspect and reason about “B” reality and to test the consequences within “A” reality [cf. Parmenides’ way of truth; Plato’s forms; scientific knowledge via pragmatic empiricism]

I split C Reality into C- and C+ in the chart.

The chart is not perfect. Consider it a first draft.

For one thing, nothing is to scale. The external observer-independent reality is vast compared to an individual organism or its brain—that’s not evident here. For another, it looks like “C” is built on top of “B”—I included brown dotted lines to indicate that both are produced in parallel by the brain.

On the left and right sides, I added downward-facing arrows for perception and introspection. Note that I show no way for perception to plumb the nature of external observer-independent reality, beyond the brain’s use of pragmatic empiricism to align its simulacrum (model) with what works for the organism.

Ideally, a chart like this would link “B” and “C” to the specific brain sections employed to stage them. (My assumption is that the brain’s process for creating consciousness “stages” the specific consciousness produced using corresponding areas of the cortex/neocortex. Although a specific conscious experience does not equate to a specific brain state, there will be a specific brain state employed to create that consciousness. Sections of the neocortex are thus seen as staging areas for specific experiences of consciousness.)

My hope is that the chart helps the reader understand the version of naturalism I’m presenting in this SubStack.