I never cared for the new-age tactic of telling retarded people that they are genius, nor the “average=100” idea for intelligence tests.
Me neither.
Who said that a human being is totally independent of reality?
A stone is part of a wall and changes the shape of the wall. The stone need not think or have a mind in order to be part of the wall. If the stone could think, then the wall would be the same in spite of any thoughts.
It is not “subjectivity” but inter-subjectivity = objectivity.
Note I raised the thread re Bitcoins, i.e. the objectivity of Bitcoins is based on the intersubjective consensus of those who participate and believe in the value of Bitcoin.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193685
I have referenced the article [which I agree] ‘Solipsism is an incoherent theory’.
iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
If you insist solipsism is tenable, then you are as a philosophical realist is a solipsist.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193716
It is not a question of “You personally co-creating?”
I can’t stop you and other from co-creating reality-is and create my own personal one.
Me, you and others are co-creators of reality [is] on a dynamic basis.
The use of the term “Reality-as-it-is” [it was Phyllo’s] with “it” can be misleading in a more refine philosophical deliberation.
I will refer to reality as “is”, i.e. “Reality-is”
Note it is ‘reality-is’ not THE ONE REALITY you have been claiming.
However the moment any one state ‘Reality is X’ then that ‘X’ has to be qualified to a Framework and System.
Btw have you read Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty’ where he wrote about ‘hinges’ and ‘river beds’ and these are the necessary philosophical Framework and System that ground one cognition of what “Reality is …”
Therefore when you insist ‘Reality is One’, then that is subjected to your personal Framework and System or one that is shared with others.
How can you prove there is only “1” actual world. That is only wishful thinking from habits and customs.
My contention is the idea of “1 actual world” is merely an idea reasoned from primal mode of reasoning and it cannot be empirically proven at all.
There can be many perspectives from philosophy.
What you have presented above is merely referring to subjective values re Philosophy of Value which is prominent in Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
There are other perspectives to the above scenario to “an ice cream cone and it’s vanilla.”
Besides values and morality, there is Metaphysics, logic, epistemology, Aesthetics. Note this dilemma raised by Russell in general philosophy, i.e. perhaps there is no ice cream cone nor vanilla at all 
If I am not mistaken you claim to be a realist, i.e. philosophical realist, thus;
If so, you are claiming a human being is totally independent of reality.
Otherwise you are a philosophical anti-realist, are you?
“conceptual scheme” being the critical phrase in the quote. :-"
There is no way one can get a handle on reality-is except creating and entangling with “conceptual schemes.”
What else other than “conceptual schemes” [aka Framework and System].
It is the “conceptual schemes” as real and embedded that motivate one to create ‘reality-is.’
Theists believe God is really real [in fact is illusory] in delivering a real holy book with good and evil elements and SOME theists believe it is so real they are inspired by the real God to commit the most abominable evils and violence on non-believers and others, therefrom creating such reality-is.
So you don’t know what “objective” means either. I’m wondering if there are actually any words that you can get right.
“Objective reality” means a reality that is independent of any opinions, whether one person or all people together.
Irrelevant.
Your claim is that people participating in sharing their individual subjective opinions constitutes an actual reality. But each individual person must have their own opinion before it can be shared with anyone else. And what about having two groups of people who collectively disagree? Where is the reality in that scenario?
Sorry, but that is just dumb. If there are more than one realities, then what does “reality-is” mean? If there is only one “reality-is”, then why isn’t that one, “The One Reality”?
No. It certainly is not. The fact that there is but one reality is independent of what I think makes up that reality.
Gyahd, your blind. 
There is only one reality and that is the Universe which is defined as ALL THERE IS. Within this however there are the smaller realities
of individual existence. And they all complement each other to produce the bigger reality. So there is perfect harmony between them
Inter subjectivity is not objectivity but a means by which subjective interpretations can be critically examined to see if there is any consensus
The greater the consensus the more likely they are taken to be true. However they can not be regarded as objectively true just probably true
Because the validity of a truth statement is not determined by how popular it is. Not even if it is both since that would be purely coincidental
Can’t have both. You can have smaller portions of the one reality, perhaps.
That makes it sound like a cake so I think a better word would be slices
There is only one reality but within it there are smaller slices of reality
Well “a slice of a cake” does not make a cake. The slices have to be all added together before there is “a whole cake”. If there are any pieces missing, it is still not a whole cake.
Reality is the whole cake, not a mere slice nor any consensual grouping. No one person nor group has a whole cake. The only Reality is the ONE wherein ALL slices are coherently combined. There can only be one of those, The ONE Reality.
So you think that a guy who believes in God and moves his body to church every Sunday is creating reality with his mind. (Because if he did not believe in God then he would be someplace else on Sunday.)
And you think that this indicates that reality is dependent on mind.
Well at least that explains why you keep saying that Realists are Solipsists. (And it explains why you asked me this bizarre question: “If so, you are claiming a human being is totally independent of reality. Otherwise you are a philosophical anti-realist, are you?”)
But that’s not the definition of Realism. No Realist thinks that way and the Wiki didn’t define Realism in that way.
How you “get a handle” is something else entirely from the belief that there is something to “get a handle on”
The above view is too narrow and shallow.
That is my point why I say the above views are very narrow and shallow.
Whatever is defined in a Dictionary is merely for the layperson’s [not for the philosophical minded] use. We are in a philosophical discussion, so the term ‘objective’ has to be from the philosophical perspective.
Note there are two main meanings to ‘objective’;
- Objective as linked with objects within reality
- Objective as linked to personal subjective opinions - neutrality
In philosophy the more relevant meaning of ‘objective’ is that of 1 above, i.e. linked with objects within reality and not 2.
So what is applicable as in the Meriam Webster for our purpose are the following;
This is similar to the one related to Philosophy as in Wiki [or any other philosophical sources], i.e.
Now note this;
All scientific knowledge are objective.
Now you tell me, how is scientific objectivity obtained without the intersubjective involvements of human scientists within the underlying processes and requirement of a human constructed Scientific Framework and System to arrive at objective scientific knowledge?
From the above it is obvious objectivity of scientific knowledge is grounded upon an underlying intersubjectivity of subjects. Such an intersubjective process is not seen consciousness but require philosophical reflection to understand it.
The same principles of the intersubjective grounds of scientific objectivity is applicable to all other philosophical objectivity.
Only a mind with narrow philosophical views will give such an ‘answer.’
Yes, each individual will have a subjective opinion then a subjective belief and when all these are processed intersubjectively with consensus via a justifiable basis [e.g. Scientific] then they become objective knowledge which is independent of the individuals opinion and beliefs.
No, your views above are the dumb ones.
Reality-is is Reality-is.
Phyllo [not sure if he understand the main point of this] made this relevant point.
viewtopic.php?p=2689465#p2689465
As with the above, when you speak of Reality-is is ONE, then that is not ‘Reality-is.’
When you insist Reality-is is ONE, then you are giving a personal subjective opinion which cannot be ‘objective.’ There could be a majority that agree with you, so there is a big consensus, but to be objective you have to prove and ensure the theory is testable, reproducible, rational and justifiable. But you cannot do that with ‘Reality-is is ONE’.
Prove why I am blind.
In fact your view is blind, narrow and shallow.
Your ‘what I think makes up that reality’ is merely your personal opinion, thus cannot be objective.
Don’t you see, it is fact you are making that subjective opinion?
As I had stated, your ‘Reality-is is ONE’ is merely a personal opinion, shared by your likes but it is not proven nor justified to be objective.
I have already provided you the definition of Realism [philosophical] many times from Wiki.
Wiki is not very credible, you check other philosophical sources and they are the same in principles as the one in Wiki.
Yes, Philosophical Realists are solipsist because they believe in a reality they can never realize and actualize because their reality is independent of their mind out there somewhere. All the reality of the Philosophical Realists are based on their beliefs [false] in their individual mind.
Every action of the person at every nano-second contribute to a new reality t2 from the past time t1.
So yes, that theist is creating a new reality by his thoughts, intention and setting off to church because he believed, in this case, an illusionary God.
Jihadists has created many versions of reality where thousands of people has been killed based on a belief of an illusionary God.
Humans are the co-creator of Reality.
Therefore you cannot deny Reality is interdependent with subjects.
The view and belief that Reality is independent of human conceptual schemes is incoherent.
It not ‘dependent’ but ‘interdependent’ with the participation of the individual’s mind with other minds.
There is no 'there is something to “get a handle on” ’ that is a pre-existing reality because as I have demonstrated above, reality has to be co-created by the subjects [human beings].
An analogy [not exactly] is the Wave Function Collapse where an electron is not realized and actualized until it is observed by humans. Thus reality is this case is interdependent with participation of human subjects.
Yeah, the Wiki says is basically right but you don’t seem to understand what it’s saying.
You’re just confused about what Realism is. Calling it Solipsism is evidence of your problem.
I wasn’t talking about other minds there.
You just keep repeating yourself. I don’t need that.
This shows your inability to think and understand language.
What is that I misunderstood?
FYI, I have been on this philosophical issue for many years.
What is the confusion?
Note I have raised a thread to justify my point.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193716
Show me where I am wrong on this.
It is relevant to me as intersubjectivity requires the participation of other minds.
You kept asking the same question, so I gave you the same truthful replies.