Well no the mind is obviously also not real. It is also extrinsic. And our own mind interprets itself as a "thing". But regardless that wasn't the original subject of discussion. And yes you're right that it serves no utility. I don't deny that. The reason the human brain thinks in "things" is exactly because it serves a useful evolutionary purpose.

In general, it is a hard subject to talk about because our mind constantly wants to categorize EVERYTHING.

Edit: I have a way to explain it better. Essentially our mind constructs are an emergent property from our brain, while our brain itself emerged from biochemistry, while biochemistry emerged from chemistry and so on. They are all extrinsic, and somewhere down there there's "things" (again I use that terminology because our minds are simply limited in that way) that are in fact intrinsic. Electrons seem to be one for example. Meaning there is nothing that electrons themselves emerge from. And again, this might change based on developments in science.

If it turns out there isn't anything intrinsic, I'm willing to change my view. Doesn't bother me. But it seems unlikely to me that reality just keeps going smaller ad infinitum. Nothing seems to suggest that, thus with current scientific knowledge it seems like a reasonable conclusion. I also didn't mean to suggest that necessarily it has to be interactions between separate intrinsic items. I just phrased it like that for simplicity's sake. It could also just be a singular intrinsic field with disturbances throughout it, or something else entirely. Just one or several "things" that are intrinsic. I never decided to focus on this point because it's, well, irrelevant.

Also it is my understanding that QTF hasn't actually proven itself as a solid framework as of yet. Regardless that's besides the point.

Hard problem of consciousness isn't a hard problem at all. I never found any of the arguments particularly engaging. Of course figuring out how consciousness emerges is difficult. Doesn't mean there is reason to believe it somehow arises through magic. Absence of evidence of it being an emergent property is not evidence of absence. People used to think the earth was the centre of the universe and now idealists and what have you think the same about consciousness. Please, get real.

The whole consciousness conversation is just boring. Simply a matter of waiting for science to explain it, nothing more.

> If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?

Reality would exist, just as it always has, made up of a bunch of intrinsic particles/fields that interact with each other. And those interactions in turn are what emerges the rest of reality from. You're trying to gotcha me where there is nothing to gotcha.

> But far far too many people use and abuse this idea to justify the endconclusion of "it doesn't really exist" / "doesn't really matter" / "Ijust really like post-modernism".

I'm wholly uninterested in arguing about ethics, or how something being real or not somehow makes it matter or not. Whether reality is real or not to me has no bearing on how much any of it matters. If you disagree that's fine, that's your prerogative. I'm basically a socialist so wouldn't exactly call myself a eugenicist or against most values western society tends to hold right now. Actually, my worldview would imply that human subjective experience is a rare gift that if anything, we should hold dear. Again though, I'm not interested in formalizing or overthinking ethics. I've been through that already, it's boring.

In addition, I don't care in what way my views are "useful in broader society". In my view it's simply a description of reality.

> A distinction that I'm not sure matters.

Well, it does matter. The color "red" in the way I experience it is something that is constructed by the brain, while the concept of the color red, in the way we describe it and try to communicate the experience to other people would be a social construct. There's a pretty clear difference between the two, wouldn't you agree?

I'll be honest I've had a short post-modernist arc but it got pretty boring, it's a philosophical dead end broadly, same with solipsism. I also find it absurd how you accuse me of solipsism when I'm pretty clearly stating (at least that's how I feel) that my experience of reality is as real as any other, meaning, not "real", just an emergent phenomenon from a whole host of complex interactions. This personally does not bother me, if it bothers you then...I'm sorry?

I'm sure you're well aware yourself but you should turn it down with the straw man fallacies, it's not a very intellectual way of engaging and doesn't seem very productive to me. Your response didn't seem to hold much substance except for accusations. So please respond with substance and proper argumentation instead if you would.

You seem to intentionally misinterpret my point. No I am not a social constructionist. A reality exists outside of our minds, that reality is just built up out of intrinsic objects (subatomic particles/quantum fields). Everything else is extrinsic and essentially emerges from interactions between those intrinsic items. Which includes anything the human mind can see. Therefore there isn't such a thing as a bottle, just a collection of subatomic particles/quantum fields that human minds like to construct into a cohesive object for purposes of survival.

My view lends some ideas from social constructivism however most of such constructivism is just inherently done by the brain, not necessarily defined through social interaction.

I am very aware of post modernism and social constructionism, don't need to explain it to me. My views are distinctly different even if surface level similar.

I don't disagree with your point, however my definition of "realness" hinges on the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties. And current scientific knowledge does seem to imply there is stuff with intrinsic properties, where interactions between them generates everything we feel, see, and experience in this universe.

I personally also don't put any "virtue" in something being real or not. I couldn't give a rat's ass if the universe was a simulation or a dream for example. Or what have you. So that's why I'm confused as to why people are such ardent defenders in this sub? The fact that all our experiences just arise from almost infinitely complex interactions between infinitesimally small objects is quite beautiful, in my opinion.

Edit: Also my definition isn't based on something as silly as "smallest". It's based on something that is INTRINSIC, meaning that it's something that can't be subdivider into smaller parts and that itself isn't an emergent property of other interactions. Some intrinsic items can be bigger than others. Electrons for example seem to be intrinsic, even though they're interacting with other extrinsic properties all the time. Size or whatever is irrelevant. If there was a huge intrinsic particle the size of a human that we could see, it would still be real vs unreal things.

Why do you people keep talking about language? That has nothing to do with the topic. Things are simply constructs of the human mind. A chair is only so much a chair as we all agree it is one. The universe as far as we know is made up of a bunch of intrinsic items (fields or whst have you) that create new emergent properties through a bunch of interactions we call extrinsic properties. And a collection of those extrinsic properties are in our brain constructed together to give the illusion that we are looking at a singular "thing", when such a thing in reality doesn't exist. It's a mind construct, useful at that, but a construct nonetheless.

I also don't deny reality exists. Quite the opposite. I'm a physicalist after all.

Youre missing the point. There simply isn't an actual "thing" called a bottle, it's simply a category for a collection of extrinsic properties. The bottle only exists so far as it exists in the construct of your mind.

You keep trying to talk about this "thing" called a bottle, but it doesn't exist. I could use a flame thrower on the bottle and it would change into something entirely different, but would still broadly exist of the same subatomic particles. Just with different extrinsic properties, and therefore looking like something different to us.

Yes of course our mind doesn't actually make an accurate and realistic version of the universe. That's why we see "things" and not just clumps of fields interacting with each other. We can't actually see subatomic particles after all. But plenty of evidence suggests those exist.

Objects with intrinsic properties exist. Which would be whatever are the foundational blocks of all of reality. Quantum fields or what have you. Everything else is extrinsic, so are emerging from those quantum fields interacting with each other. Kind of like how everything on our computer screens are just bits switching on and off.

Yea but science has become quite good at tapping, feeling, and licking. The fact we can't know how it "truly looks" is not necessarily needed. We know how atoms work almost perfectly without really knowing how they "look".

There is no real "thing" called a bottle, there's just a collection of particles (or quantum disturbances, whatever the fundamental parts of our universe are, it's irrelevant really to the point) that we categorize as a bottle based on what functional purposes it can serve us. Those are based usually on the emergent phenomena that our brain can register from this collection of particles. It's a fundamental limit on the human psyche that we like to categorize stuff, when fundamentally these categories don't actually exist.