You Are a Co-Creator of Reality.

[Prismatic567]

It is not "subjectivity" but inter-subjectivity = objectivity.

So you don't know what "objective" means either. I'm wondering if there are actually any words that you can get right.

The above view is too narrow and shallow.

ojective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality
… our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world. —Marvin Reznikoff
— compare subjective 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual objective arthritis — compare subjective 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena objective awareness objective data
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs The pronoun her is in the objective case in the sentence "I saw her."
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgment
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.

"Objective reality" means a reality that is independent of any opinions, whether one person or all people together.

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.

A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

So what is applicable as in the Meriam Webster for our purpose are the following;

Objective:
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind: objective reality
… our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.

This is similar to the one related to Philosophy as in Wiki [or any other philosophical sources], i.e.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

Now note this;
All scientific knowledge are objective.

Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

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.

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.

Irrelevant.

Only a mind with narrow philosophical views will give such an 'answer.'

Which "Reality-as-it-is" are You personally co-creating?

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.

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?

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.

Note it is 'reality-is' not THE ONE REALITY you have been claiming.

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, 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

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

https://www.taoism.net/ttc/chapters/chap01.htm

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'.

Therefore when you insist 'Reality is One', then that is subjected to your personal Framework and System or one that is shared with others.

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

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 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.

I have already provided you the definition of Realism [philosophical] many times from Wiki.

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

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.

So you think that a guy who believes in God and moves his body to church every Sunday is creating reality with his 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.

And you think that this indicates that reality is dependent on mind.

It not 'dependent' but 'interdependent' with the participation of the individual's mind with other minds.

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].

How you "get a handle" is something else entirely from the belief that there is something to "get a handle on"

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.

[phyllo]

Wiki is not very credible, you check other philosophical sources and they are the same in principles as the one in Wiki.

Yeah, the Wiki says is basically right but you don't seem to understand what it's saying.

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.

You're just confused about what Realism is. Calling it Solipsism is evidence of your problem.

It not 'dependent' but 'interdependent' with the participation of the individual's mind with other minds.

I wasn't talking about other minds there.

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].

You just keep repeating yourself. I don't need that.

[James S Saint]

Yes, Philosophical Realists are solipsist because they believe in a reality they can never realize

This shows your inability to think and understand language.

[Prismatic567]

Wiki is not very credible, you check other philosophical sources and they are the same in principles as the one in Wiki.

Yeah, the Wiki says is basically right but you don't seem to understand what it's saying.

What is that I misunderstood?
FYI, I have been on this philosophical issue for many years.

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.

You're just confused about what Realism is. Calling it Solipsism is evidence of your problem.

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 not 'dependent' but 'interdependent' with the participation of the individual's mind with other minds.

I wasn't talking about other minds there.

It is relevant to me as intersubjectivity requires the participation of 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].

You just keep repeating yourself. I don't need that.

You kept asking the same question, so I gave you the same truthful replies.

[Prismatic567]

Yes, Philosophical Realists are solipsist because they believe in a reality they can never realize

This shows your inability to think and understand language.

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.

[James S Saint]

The above view is relatively kindergarten type,

Says the typical kindergartner who things Einstein an idiot.

Note Philosophical Realists claim their theories represent reality-is but their theories are never realistic.

According to the kindergartner.

Anyone can make claims but merely first to claim do not necessary represent what is ultimately true.

A lesson you have yet to learn.

[surreptitious75]

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

[James S Saint]

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.

"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.

[Prismatic567]

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

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.

[surreptitious75]

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

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

[Prismatic567]

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

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.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

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?

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

[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?

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].

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

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

[Karpel Tunnel]

@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.
https://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.