You Are a Co-Creator of Reality.

[phyllo]

You can’t talk about “reality” in the singular, you have to talk about “realities” in the plural. Then you are getting closer to what he means.

[Prismatic567]

@Arcturus Descending

Prismatic567"

With your next breath you are creating a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago.

Wouldn’t that take more than just a breath? Like some kind of action (not breath)?
How much change can there be with one breath?

The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.

In what way CAN we be independent of reality?

Hmmm…I may be wrong here but it seems to me that those who think that they can be are delusional or paranoid schizophrenics.
Perhaps we cannot change reality or our existence as is but we can certainly respond to it in a certain way.

My problem here was with your phrase: cannot be totally independent of the reality.
I may be wrong but how can we be even a little bit independent of reality? I want to see.

The only way for one to be totally independent of reality is merely in thought within a framework of belief [e.g. theism, philosophical realism, objectivism, etc], but note, such a thought is itself a part [interdependent with] of reality.

[Gloominary]

@Prismatic567

In term as a human being ‘you’ have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.
From day one of breathing, eating, farting and shitting, you have been a contributor to reality-as-it-is.
With your next breath you are creating a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago].

The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.

Agree?

From the galactic point of view, we have very little say over the layout, the makeup of the cosmos, but from the point of the view of a bacteria, or an atom, we are Gods, within each of us may exist trillions of worlds, hinging on our whims.

[Prismatic567]

@Gloominary

@Prismatic567

In term as a human being ‘you’ have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.
From day one of breathing, eating, farting and shitting, you have been a contributor to reality-as-it-is.
With your next breath you are creating a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago].

The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.

Agree?

From the galactic point of view, we have very little say over the layout, the makeup of the cosmos,

I don’t think the bigger Sun, other Stars or Astronomical Systems has more say. The fact is humans has at least has freewill to determine the next line of action.

but from the point of the view of a bacteria, or an atom, we are Gods, within each of us may exist trillions of worlds, hinging on our whims.

True, especially an antibiotic addict or a person who put in all sorts of poison into his/her body.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@Prism

Scientific knowledge is the most credible objective knowledge accepted by the majority

What a strange statement. Is there one that is better accepted by a minority?
But the real weirdness is that scientists tend to be realists whom you call solipsists. They tend to presume a mind independent reality, even if some grant specific gray areas in quantum processes.
IOW their jtb is that there is a real external reality that they perceive and can analyze and come to better models of.
You think this is wrong, yet you contrast science with religion, for example, as if you were ontologically or even epistemologically similar to most of science and most scientists, which you are not.

[Prismatic567]

@Karpel Tunnel

@Prism

Scientific knowledge is the most credible objective knowledge accepted by the majority

What a strange statement. Is there one that is better accepted by a minority?
But the real weirdness is that scientists tend to be realists whom you call solipsists. They tend to presume a mind independent reality, even if some grant specific gray areas in quantum processes.
IOW their jtb is that there is a real external reality that they perceive and can analyze and come to better models of.
You think this is wrong, yet you contrast science with religion, for example, as if you were ontologically or even epistemologically similar to most of science and most scientists, which you are not.

Scientific knowledge [JTB] is the most credible knowledge but from the philosophical perspective it need to be reinforced with philosophical rationalization.

A Scientist per se relied solely on the strength of the Scientific Method within the Scientific Framework and System and nothing else.
The Scientific Method merely assume an independent reality but this do not imply the Scientific Framework and System is philosophical and based on Philosophical Realism.

Realism [Philosophical] is confined only to Philosophy and not Science.

A scientist who is philosophically oriented may rely on various philosophical theories to reinforce his scientific thinking.
Note some scientists are very religious and theistic and whilst they conform to the Scientific Method for their scientific theory, they rely on God as the ultimate decider of knowledge.

Note there are theistic and religious believers whose claims are agreeable with Science, that is not an issue.
The issue is with those contentious issues that do not agree with Science, e.g. God exists and created the whole Universe, and other supernatural claims.

To counter the contentious issues I have used Science as a leverage but more critically I rely on philosophy [higher reason and wisdom] to keep unjustified claims as what they really are, in this case, God is illusory and an impossibility.

[Gloominary]

@Prismatic

I don’t think the bigger Sun, other Stars or Astronomical Systems has more say. The fact is humans has at least has freewill to determine the next line of action.

As individuals, we have little say over big and far things, but lots of say over small and near things.

[Prismatic567]

@Gloominary

@Prismatic

I don’t think the bigger Sun, other Stars or Astronomical Systems has more say. The fact is humans has at least has freewill to determine the next line of action.

As individuals, we have little say over big and far things, but lots of say over small and near things.

Note Chaos Theory

The Butterfly Effect
A flap of a butterfly’s wings in China can cause a hurricane in the USA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Who knows what one fart by a person can cause within Earth and the Universe?

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@Prismatic567

@Gloominary

@Prismatic

I don’t think the bigger Sun, other Stars or Astronomical Systems has more say. The fact is humans has at least has freewill to determine the next line of action.

As individuals, we have little say over big and far things, but lots of say over small and near things.

Note Chaos Theory

The Butterfly Effect
A flap of a butterfly’s wings in China can cause a hurricane in the USA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Who knows what one fart by a person can cause within Earth and the Universe?

I don’t know who has the intellect to predict one’s own Butterfly effects, so his point still holds. The label Chaos Theory should be telling here. We have some ability to predict smaller more local effects of our actions.