What is your Framework and System of Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

Here is a case, where a claim of reality is made but Eodnhoj7 is clueless as to what FSR or FSK he is relying upon to arrive at his conclusion.

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is Kant on how most who make claims of reality but never relied on any credible FSK but merely are speculating without foundations.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
CPR [A5] [B9]

As Kant further mentioned, even the wisest of men could be driven to reify illusions as real without any groundings;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

Because these men do not rely on any credible FSK they do have a mean to track whether the conclusion they arrive at are realistic or not.

But due to some terrible cognitive dissonance, they have no choice but to accept the above irrational illusions because they really work [having apparent pseudo rationality*] as a consonance to relieve the terrible dissonance.

*
-all causes must ultimately reduced to an uncaused cause.
-all things cannot come from nothing, there must be an ultimate something.
-there must be something constant beyond changing phenomenon.
- etc.

[Skepdick]

Because these men do not rely on any credible FSK they do have a mean to track whether the conclusion they arrive at are realistic or not.

Like every philosopher/philosophy/framework you always end up appealing to some vaguely defined term.

In your case that term is "credible".

What FSK do you propose for determining the credibility of other FSKs?

Luciano Floridi got this bit right: Philosophy is just conceptual design. In his work he (ultimately) compares Philosophy to systems engineering.

Which is exactly how one ought to view any FSK because the S stands for System.

[Eodnhoj7]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

Here is a case, where a claim of reality is made but Eodnhoj7 is clueless as to what FSR or FSK he is relying upon to arrive at his conclusion.

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

If I provide a system and framework of knowledge that in itself would be empty and dependent upon another system and framework of knowledge, which would continually regress, until one is left with a system and framework which is entirely assumed. Considering all systems and frameworks are means of observation the system and framework presented is strictly pure observation itself where the emptiness of a phenomenon is accepted as is. This is not psychology as psychology is a subset of observation.

You contradict yourself by limiting knowledge to a system and framework of knowledge as the FSK is in itself a subset of another FSK. In simpler terms there is a FSK that creates FSKs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because these men do not rely on any credible FSK they do have a mean to track whether the conclusion they arrive at are realistic or not.

Like every philosopher/philosophy/framework you always end up appealing to some vaguely defined term.

In your case that term is "credible".

What FSK do you propose for determining the credibility of other FSKs?

Luciano Floridi got this bit right: Philosophy is just conceptual design. In his work he (ultimately) compares Philosophy to systems engineering.

Which is exactly how one ought to view any FSK because the S stands for System.

I have written above in the OP,

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

The scientific framework and system, I believe, is the most credible [able to be believed; convincing, reliable] FSK in terms of reality. It is credible based on its transparent processes and promise of repeatability of conclusions to any one performing the same tests.

As such the scientific FSK is that standard bearer of truth and reality whilst other FSKs are rated relative to the scientific FSK.

What other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

Luciano Floridi's "conceptual design" do not seem [maybe it is?] to reconcile precisely with my concept an complete Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge [FSK].

The new terminology, "conceptual design", seems simply a development of Dummett's view that: "the philosopher's own resource is the analysis of concepts we already possess" (p. 18).
Therefore, besides the analogy with the principle of design in architecture (analysed in chapter 10 and applied to system engineering on pp. 298 ff.), Floridi's view of philosophy as conceptual design seems to place philosophy on traditional grounds as the "art of identifying and clarifying open questions and of devising, refining, proposing and evaluating explanatory answers".

However Luciano Floridi's "conceptual design" is a kick in the butt of the Representation View of Reality [correspondence] which Peter Holmes et. al. is clinging on, i.e.

Floridi suggests abandoning any representationalist view in order to develop a philosophy of information as conceptual design.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

Here is a case, where a claim of reality is made but Eodnhoj7 is clueless as to what FSR or FSK he is relying upon to arrive at his conclusion.

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

If I provide a system and framework of knowledge that in itself would be empty and dependent upon another system and framework of knowledge, which would continually regress, until one is left with a system and framework which is entirely assumed. Considering all systems and frameworks are means of observation the system and framework presented is strictly pure observation itself where the emptiness of a phenomenon is accepted as is. This is not psychology as psychology is a subset of observation.

You contradict yourself by limiting knowledge to a system and framework of knowledge as the FSK is in itself a subset of another FSK. In simpler terms there is a FSK that creates FSKs.

All FSKs are constructed by humans, thus ultimately "empty".

Acknowledging it is empty, what is your System and Framework of Knowledge and what are its dependent FSK if any?
If you don't rely on any FSK at all, you are standing on air.

Let me give you a clue to what your FSK is,
Your FSK re the issue is based on the very shaky and rickety Framework and System of Reality called 'Metaphysics of Substance Theory'.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons.

First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion.
Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

What you'll end up with the above Metaphysical FSK is an illusion.

Kant asked the famous question;
"Is Metaphysics Possible" like Science and Mathematics.
The resounding answer is, NO!!!

[Skepdick]

What other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

Nobody can answer this question for you until you state your epistemic criteria for "reliability".

Reliable for what task?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

Nobody can answer this question for you until you state your epistemic criteria for "reliability".

Reliable for what task?

Note the Top 9 Main Characteristics of scientific knowledge;

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.

5. Reliability of Scientific Knowledge

This section examines the importance of reliability of scientific knowledge, for the scientific community and for society. Reproducibility is one criterion for reliability of scientific knowledge, ...

Reproducibility—the extent to which consistent results are observed when scientific studies
are repeated—is one of science’s defining features, and has even been described as the
“demarcation criterion between science and non-science”.
In principle, the entire body of scientific evidence could be reproduced independently by researchers following the original methods and drawing from insights gleaned by prior investigators.
In this sense, belief in scientific evidence is not contingent on trust in its originators. Other types of belief depend on the authority and motivations of the source; beliefs in science do not.

Considering its central importance, one might expect replication to be a prominent part of scientific practice. It is not. An important reason for this is that scientists have strong incentives to introduce new ideas but weak incentives to confirm the validity of old ideas.
Innovative findings produce rewards of publication, employment, and tenure; replicated findings produce a shrug.

Based on the above 9 features of the Scientific FSK and their high ratings relative to other FSKs,
what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

[Skepdick]

Note the Top 9 Main Characteristics of scientific knowledge;

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.

This is the 3rd person/sociological perspective. That is indeed, what we, society say about science. That is how we think about it.

The Top 1 characteristic of scientific knowledge from the 1st person perspective is utility.

It's instrumental to a goal. What is that goal?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the Top 9 Main Characteristics of scientific knowledge;

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.

This is the 3rd person/sociological perspective. That is indeed, what we, society say about science. That is how we think about it.

The Top 1 characteristic of scientific knowledge from the 1st person perspective is utility.

It's instrumental to a goal. What is that goal?

The degree of utility obtainable is conditioned upon the above characteristics.
How can we have great consistent utility if the FSK is not reliable plus the other features.

Assuming the same ultimate goal and pari passu,
what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

[Skepdick]

The degree of utility obtainable is conditioned upon the above characteristics.

No, usefulness is not necessarily conditioned upon the above.

A subjective, non-verifiable, imprecise, non-abstract unpredictable tool that works is no less useful to me if it's sufficiently useful for the task at hand.

How can we have great consistent utility if the FSK is not reliable plus the other features.

You can't guarantee reliability a priori - you can only assert it a posteriori. There is always an element of uncertainty.

We assume the framework is reliable, but we also apply counter-factual reasoning - what's the worst that can happen if it's wrong?

Assuming the same ultimate goal and pari passu

Which is what...?

what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

You are still throwing "reliability" around loosely.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The degree of utility obtainable is conditioned upon the above characteristics.

No, usefulness is not necessarily conditioned upon the above.
A subjective, non-verifiable, imprecise, non-abstract unpredictable tool that works is no less useful to me if it's sufficiently useful for the task at hand.

We need to be more precise with 'utility' refers to in this case.

I would relate 'utility' to the progress and well being of humanity rather than relative to the individuals.

In the case of individuals, for the majority AT Present a belief in an illusion, i.e. God who promised salvation would be of the utmost useful to them. Most theists would be willing to give up whatever to obey the commands of their illusory God.

As for humanity sake, the scientific facts from the scientific FSK would have the most significant and greatest utility currently and potentially in
-saving humanity from pandemics and other diseases
-to the possibly that it will enable humanity to deflect any large rogue asteroid heading Earth's way with the potential to exterminate the human species.

I don't see any other FSK can contribute more greater utility than the scientific FSK with its credibility re the 9 or more features.

How can we have great consistent utility if the FSK is not reliable plus the other features.
We assume the framework is reliable, but we also apply counter-factual reasoning - what's the worst that can happen if it's wrong?

You can't guarantee reliability a priori - you can only assert it a posteriori. There is always an element of uncertainty.

Agree cannot guarantee.
But the reliability is depended on past results and thus highly likely but with no guarantee.

If it is wrong at least it is based on something rational which we can improve upon.
In contrast to what is depended upon blind faith.

Assuming the same ultimate goal and pari passu

Which is what...?

As above, in relation to the goals of humanity rather than the individuals.

what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

You are still throwing "reliability" around loosely.

To me it is very obvious there is not other FSK that is greater than the scientific FSK.
In contrast to the scientific FSK, can legal knowledge, political, social knowledge, economics, historical, etc., have greater utility for humanity?

[Skepdick]

We need to be more precise with 'utility' refers to in this case.

You need to be more precise about the level of precision you require.

I would relate 'utility' to the progress and well being of humanity rather than relative to the individuals.

It's the same thing. If individuals are doing better then humanity is doing better.

In the case of individuals, for the majority AT Present a belief in an illusion

Then choose individuals from the extremes of the distribution?

, i.e. God who promised salvation would be of the utmost useful to them. Most theists would be willing to give up whatever to obey the commands of their illusory God.

And some theists have no problem compartmentalising/reconciling religion and science. Some scientists are religious!

You should watch Rorty's video Is science compatible with religion?

it is compatible. The conflict you insist exists is unnecessary.

As for humanity sake, the scientific facts from the scientific FSK would have the most significant and greatest utility currently and potentially in
-saving humanity from pandemics and other diseases
-to the possibly that it will enable humanity to deflect any large rogue asteroid heading Earth's way with the potential to exterminate the human species.

I don't see any other FSK can contribute more greater utility than the scientific FSK with its credibility re the 9 or more features.

Which is why we use scientific input for policy-making, but we don't necessarily need such input at the scale of individual decision-making.

It's a matter of scale.

Agree cannot guarantee.
But the reliability is depended on past results and thus highly likely but with no guarantee.

If it is wrong at least it is based on something rational which we can improve upon.
In contrast to what is depended upon blind faith.

Most of the medicine I take - I take on blind faith.

Most humans have neither the time, nor the know-how to scrutinise every single product on the market.

We all place blind faith in "the system". We always have.

As above, in relation to the goals of humanity rather than the individuals.

One would expect them to be approximately the same/largely overlapping.

What are the goals of humanity?

To me it is very obvious there is not other FSK that is greater than the scientific FSK.
In contrast to the scientific FSK, can legal knowledge, political, social knowledge, economics, historical, etc., have greater utility for humanity?

The FSK of risk management overrides the scientific FSK.

The last 12 months of pandemic-management should be testament to this. You are literally observing the precautionary principle play itself out.

In the absence of scientific knowledge, we still can, do and must make decisions.

[Eodnhoj7]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

Here is a case, where a claim of reality is made but Eodnhoj7 is clueless as to what FSR or FSK he is relying upon to arrive at his conclusion.


You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

If I provide a system and framework of knowledge that in itself would be empty and dependent upon another system and framework of knowledge, which would continually regress, until one is left with a system and framework which is entirely assumed. Considering all systems and frameworks are means of observation the system and framework presented is strictly pure observation itself where the emptiness of a phenomenon is accepted as is. This is not psychology as psychology is a subset of observation.

You contradict yourself by limiting knowledge to a system and framework of knowledge as the FSK is in itself a subset of another FSK. In simpler terms there is a FSK that creates FSKs.

All FSKs are constructed by humans, thus ultimately "empty".

Acknowledging it is empty, what is your System and Framework of Knowledge and what are its dependent FSK if any?
If you don't rely on any FSK at all, you are standing on air.

Let me give you a clue to what your FSK is,
Your FSK re the issue is based on the very shaky and rickety Framework and System of Reality called 'Metaphysics of Substance Theory'.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons.

First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion.
Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

What you'll end up with the above Metaphysical FSK is an illusion.

Kant asked the famous question;
"Is Metaphysics Possible" like Science and Mathematics.
The resounding answer is, NO!!!

Given the emptiness of the FSK I would still be standing on air if using one.

What is the FSK you use to determine the most credible FSK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

We need to be more precise with 'utility' refers to in this case.

You need to be more precise about the level of precision you require.

I would relate 'utility' to the progress and well being of humanity rather than relative to the individuals.

It's the same thing. If individuals are doing better then humanity is doing better.

In the case of individuals, for the majority AT Present a belief in an illusion

Then choose individuals from the extremes of the distribution?

Where the individual Hitler was doing better, surely humanity was not doing better?

, i.e. God who promised salvation would be of the utmost useful to them. Most theists would be willing to give up whatever to obey the commands of their illusory God.

And some theists have no problem compartmentalising/reconciling religion and science. Some scientists are religious!

You should watch Rorty's video Is science compatible with religion?

it is compatible. The conflict you insist exists is unnecessary.

My point is the BB [and other scientific theories] of scientific FSK is obvious more credible than the creationism of theistic religions.

Agree cannot guarantee.
But the reliability is depended on past results and thus highly likely but with no guarantee.

If it is wrong at least it is based on something rational which we can improve upon.
In contrast to what is depended upon blind faith.

Most of the medicine I take - I take on blind faith.

Most humans have neither the time, nor the know-how to scrutinise every single product on the market.

We all place blind faith in "the system". We always have.

Yes, layman will have to rely on 'faith' to believe the various FSK.
However I don't think for many it is based on blind faith.
I would trust medicines from reputable regulated pharmacies [no guarantee] than those from a shaman or folk medicine men.

As above, in relation to the goals of humanity rather than the individuals.

One would expect them to be approximately the same/largely overlapping.

What are the goals of humanity?

Generally yes, but not in all cases, e.g. Hitler and other evil dictators.

Goals of Humanity is related to its well-being.
What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

To me it is very obvious there is not other FSK that is greater than the scientific FSK.
In contrast to the scientific FSK, can legal knowledge, political, social knowledge, economics, historical, etc., have greater utility for humanity?

The FSK of risk management overrides the scientific FSK.

The last 12 months of pandemic-management should be testament to this. You are literally observing the precautionary principle play itself out.

In the absence of scientific knowledge, we still can, do and must make decisions.

Yes, in a way, but
The FSK of risk management, problem solving, logic and the likes are tools and not exactly producing knowledge, like the scientific FSK and the likes.

What I was referring was to FSKs that produce knowledge representing reality thus has utility to humanity in that sense.
I will qualify my question as above in future.