You Are a Co-Creator 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’;

  1. Objective as linked with objects within reality
  2. 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.

As usual no justifications.

The above view is relatively kindergarten type, i.e. narrow and shallow philosophically, thus an inability to understand philosophy is a more refined level.

Note Philosophical Realists claim their theories represent reality-is but their theories are never realistic.
Anyone can make claims but merely first to claim do not necessary represent what is ultimately true. Philosophically, Philosophical Realists are Transcendental Realists and not empirical realists.

Says the typical kindergartner who things Einstein an idiot.

According to the kindergartner.

A lesson you have yet to learn.

One has to be careful when using objectivity in relation to science. For something to be objective or objectively true means it is absolutely true and therefore can
not be falsified since it can be proven. But science is an inductive discipline which deals in evidence not proof [ apart from null hypotheses or disproof ] Nothing is
ever taken to be absolutely true. Even theories which are the highest form of classification in science are not regarded as being absolutely true only probably true

“Falsifiable” means that there is an experiment that can only fail if the hypothesis is false. It refers to a type of experiment that in combination with logic, dictates that a hypothesis must be true. Most hypotheses are not really falsifiable, but accepted anyway merely out of speculated probability.

Scientific theories and knowledge are at best polished conjectures [Popper] but nevertheless objective. Scientific knowledge is the most credible objective knowledge accepted by the majority.

There are degrees of objectivity and the fact is there is no absolutely absolute knowledge that is totally unconditional.

Scientists and those who use scientific knowledge must understand such knowledge cannot stand by themselves but are always conditional to the Scientific Framework and System.

That is true of science but absolute knowledge does exist in other disciplines that are deductive such as mathematics

For example it is absolutely true that one plus one equals two because that statement can never be disproven

“1 + 1 = 2” is not absolutely absolute nor totally unconditional.

“1 + 1 = 2” is not absolutely absolute but it is relatively absolute and conditioned upon the Mathematical Framework and System. “1 + 1 = 2” is merely a mathematical model and thus true only within the Mathematical Framework and System.

Outside the Mathematical Framework and System it cannot insist it is absolutely true, for example,
1 drop of water + one drop of water = one drop of water [albeit a bigger drop].

There are many other instances of reality where “1 + 1 = 2” is not absolute nor true.

As I had mentioned, as long as we are dealing with empirical related elements, there is no absolute, in this case absolutely-absolute.

It’s not a clue its a mandate of logical necessity.

Agree, I was just being humble.
Personally I am 99.999% certainty [given there is no 100% certainty].

Prismatic567"

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.