Dear William M Baum
I believe I have solved the philosophical realism problem at least with regard to ONTOGENY -- which is your concern; why start over?
Really! There is no dualism in my full-blown, already-developed outline for a human ethogram (see especially "A Human Ethogram ..." in the "Human Ethology and Development" Project). Absolutely no philosophical "realism" problem of the sort you describe there and it is a full scientific outline for studying the human ONTOGENY and finding the ethogram.
Save yourself a lot of work. I've done it.:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development
[ I find I have to follow your Project to see my Question in the Home list and to see some responses . I do not endorse your Project because I believe it makes "trouble" and complications, where they need not be; I suspect it will only defeat its own purpose. Historically, that is about all that has ever happened with philosophy; philosophy, by its very nature is (at least) almost always dualistic; at times, it is "well-equipped" to cause the very problems it seeks to solve: To wit: I see in your paper you want to focus on "activities" -- and with that you already have lost not being "separate from perception" -- and show a hallmark (you pointed out) of the philosophical realism you wanted to avoid ! Eeek! Here is a tip: YOU, the researcher: DEFINE NOTHING and see things from their inception by being able to note the key perception! My long paper indicates how. ]
Regards, Brad Jesness
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science