Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is another explanation re
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]

So far I have not come across any poster here claiming,
A description-of-a-thing-X is the-thing-X-being-described.

As far as I am concerned, I believe,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Therefore when a person [humans] describe a thing-X, that thing-X-being-described is co-created by the person [humans] making that description.

At the crudest level, it is the same as me describing a table I made, is the same table created by myself.
Obviously my description of the table I created is not the table I described.
My description merely refer to the table I created.

At the finest philosophical level -not common sense - all of reality is co-created by me and all humans.
Obviously my description of reality I co-created is not the co-created reality I described.
My description merely refer to the reality I co-created.

We certainly 'co-describe' the reality we are in.
But in what way do we co-create that reality?
Do you really think we co-created the universe?

The question is co-create 'in what way'.

Humans are not the co-creators of reality in the ways that human conventionally create things like tables, buildings, boats, airplanes and the likes.
As such to understand [not necessary agree with] my point, one cannot be stuck with the above conventional perspective.

Here is the perspective where humans are the co-creator of reality.
Create = to cause to come into being,
Reality [all there is] exists, i.e. emerges.
The fact is humanity [i.e. man] is a factor that cause reality into being.
Therefore, humans collectively are the co-creator of reality - all there is - thus including the universe.

I am not going to explain above in thorough details, however I will provide some clues e.g. the Youtube link above.

Here is another clue I had often linked, i.e. the Mask Illusion,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0
What we have here is a mask with a concave and convex side.
When the mask is turning, how is it that ALL [no exceptions] humans participating, only see a 3-D convex face?

An image example;

This face of Björn Borg appears convex (pushed out), but is actually concave (pushed in).

If we were to present the above to a group of humans who are totally ignorant of what is going on, they will insist what is real is a 3-D mask with both sides as convex.
No amount of arguments will convince them to change their mind as to what they perceive and realize as reality.
( they will only realize the truth if they are told of the illusion).

Btw, blind sonar bats are not likely to perceive the above in the same mode as humans.

Now let turn to our conventional reality of external physical things we can
touch as solid, e.g. table, stones, apples, metal, trees, animals, people, etc.
see like clouds, steam, vapors, etc.
It is possible that we humans [generic] view the above things as what they are, but like those who are ignorant of the Mask Illusion, what see as physically real could be another form of illusion which we are not aware of because we are so habitualized to it for 4 billions of years [since our one-celled ancestors].

We are quite sure blind sonar bats and others of the likes [if can able to describe] will not agree with our descriptions of what is reality to us.

And WHO ARE WE HUMANS to insist our description of the reality is THE REAL REALITY.
Aliens who are 1000 times more advanced than earthly human are not likely to agree with our human description of reality [justified within the human FSK].

But recently [last 50-75 years] Quantum Physics has revealed to us, there is no ultimate reality as with the wave-particle dilemma and that the subject is inevitably entangled with what is realized as real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

Since there is not certainty of what is real and what is real is relative to whether the realizer of reality are bats, humans, aliens, etc., each of these groups are the co-creator of their own reality.

As such humans are the co-creators of human-based-reality via the human FSR.

And WHO ARE WE HUMANS to insist as the final arbiter that our description of the reality [as justified via the human FSR/FSK] is THE ULTIMATE REAL REALITY.

[Atla]

Here is another explanation re
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]

So far I have not come across any poster here claiming,
A description-of-a-thing-X is the-thing-X-being-described.

As far as I am concerned, I believe,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Therefore when a person [humans] describe a thing-X, that thing-X-being-described is co-created by the person [humans] making that description.

At the crudest level, it is the same as me describing a table I made, is the same table created by myself.
Obviously my description of the table I created is not the table I described.
My description merely refer to the table I created.

At the finest philosophical level -not common sense - all of reality is co-created by me and all humans.
Obviously my description of reality I co-created is not the co-created reality I described.
My description merely refer to the reality I co-created.

We certainly 'co-describe' the reality we are in.
But in what way do we co-create that reality?
Do you really think we co-created the universe?

The question is co-create 'in what way'.

Humans are not the co-creators of reality in the ways that human conventionally create things like tables, buildings, boats, airplanes and the likes.
As such to understand [not necessary agree with] my point, one cannot be stuck with the above conventional perspective.

Here is the perspective where humans are the co-creator of reality.
Create = to cause to come into being,
Reality [all there is] exists, i.e. emerges.
The fact is humanity [i.e. man] is a factor that cause reality into being.
Therefore, humans collectively are the co-creator of reality - all there is - thus including the universe.

I am not going to explain above in thorough details, however I will provide some clues e.g. the Youtube link above.

Here is another clue I had often linked, i.e. the Mask Illusion,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0
What we have here is a mask with a concave and convex side.
When the mask is turning, how is it that ALL [no exceptions] humans participating, only see a 3-D convex face?

An image example;

This face of Björn Borg appears convex (pushed out), but is actually concave (pushed in).

If we were to present the above to a group of humans who are totally ignorant of what is going on, they will insist what is real is a 3-D mask with both sides as convex.
No amount of arguments will convince them to change their mind as to what they perceive and realize as reality.
( they will only realize the truth if they are told of the illusion).

Btw, blind sonar bats are not likely to perceive the above in the same mode as humans.

Now let turn to our conventional reality of external physical things we can
touch as solid, e.g. table, stones, apples, metal, trees, animals, people, etc.
see like clouds, steam, vapors, etc.
It is possible that we humans [generic] view the above things as what they are, but like those who are ignorant of the Mask Illusion, what see as physically real could be another form of illusion which we are not aware of because we are so habitualized to it for 4 billions of years [since our one-celled ancestors].

We are quite sure blind sonar bats and others of the likes [if can able to describe] will not agree with our descriptions of what is reality to us.

And WHO ARE WE HUMANS to insist our description of the reality is THE REAL REALITY.
Aliens who are 1000 times more advanced than earthly human are not likely to agree with our human description of reality [justified within the human FSK].

But recently [last 50-75 years] Quantum Physics has revealed to us, there is no ultimate reality as with the wave-particle dilemma and that the subject is inevitably entangled with what is realized as real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

Since there is not certainty of what is real and what is real is relative to whether the realizer of reality are bats, humans, aliens, etc., each of these groups are the co-creator of their own reality.

As such humans are the co-creators of human-based-reality via the human FSR.

And WHO ARE WE HUMANS to insist as the final arbiter that our description of the reality [as justified via the human FSR/FSK] is THE ULTIMATE REAL REALITY.

Man is not a factor that causes reality into being, not like that. That's also an illusion. Do you understand the difference between co-creating reality and indirect realism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Man is not a factor that causes reality into being, not like that. That's also an illusion. Do you understand the difference between co-creating reality and indirect realism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

Your above is shooting blanks.

Did you read the article you linked properly?

• Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the accepted view of perception in natural science that states that we do not and cannot perceive the external world as it really is but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.[4] Representationalism is one of the key assumptions of cognitivism in psychology.
  The representational realist would deny that "first-hand knowledge" is a coherent concept, since knowledge is always via some means, and argue instead that our ideas of the world are interpretations of sensory input derived from an external world that is real (unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but mind-independent things are not).

The idea in the OP is not about the external world as it really is by itself as in Indirect Realism.

The reality co-created by humans collectively is the external-world-by human_selves. Btw, this is not based on idealism per se.

Note the significant difference.

[Atla]

Man is not a factor that causes reality into being, not like that. That's also an illusion. Do you understand the difference between co-creating reality and indirect realism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

Your above is shooting blanks.

Did you read the article you linked properly?

• Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the accepted view of perception in natural science that states that we do not and cannot perceive the external world as it really is but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.[4] Representationalism is one of the key assumptions of cognitivism in psychology.
  The representational realist would deny that "first-hand knowledge" is a coherent concept, since knowledge is always via some means, and argue instead that our ideas of the world are interpretations of sensory input derived from an external world that is real (unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but mind-independent things are not).

The idea in the OP is not about the external world as it really is by itself as in Indirect Realism.

The reality co-created by humans collectively is the external-world-by human_selves. Btw, this is not based on idealism per se.

Note the significant difference.

That's not in English I can recognize. By 'reality' do you mean the consensus assumed picture (idea) of the external world?
If yes, then how can humans be 'in' an idea?

[Skepdick]

That's not in English I can recognize. By 'reality' do you mean the consensus assumed picture (idea) of the external world?
If yes, then how can humans be 'in' an idea?

Because "human" is just an idea. It's a way of describing ourselves.

[Atla]

That's not in English I can recognize. By 'reality' do you mean the consensus assumed picture (idea) of the external world?
If yes, then how can humans be 'in' an idea?

Because "human" is just an idea. It's a way of describing ourselves.

Ideas can't be 'co-creators'.

[Skepdick]

Ideas can't be 'co-creators'.

Look! You've managed to hide the ball from yourself again. Creation itself is an idea. An idea created by the creators of ideas.

Ideas, Humans, Creators. Beings. Philosophers. Ideologues.

You are stuck in the cycle of constant self re-description. Pick a label and stick with it.

Or read a book.

[Terrapin Station]

I am not going to explain above in thorough details,

Now there's a surprise.

So do you think that humans existed prior to anything else?

[Terrapin Station]

That's not in English I can recognize. By 'reality' do you mean the consensus assumed picture (idea) of the external world?
If yes, then how can humans be 'in' an idea?

Because "human" is just an idea. It's a way of describing ourselves.

Why wouldn't "ourselves" be just an idea in your view? In which case, "ourselves" is a way of describing what? And then why wouldn't that just be an idea? Ad infinitum.

[Terrapin Station]

Creation itself is an idea.

By the way, what would you say the practical benefits are of saying that "creation itself is an idea"?

[Skepdick]

Why wouldn't "ourselves" be just an idea in your view? In which case, "ourselves" is a way of describing what? And then why wouldn't that just be an idea? Ad infinitum.

Ad infinitum doesn't bother me. It's just recursion.

It bothers you.

[Terrapin Station]

Why wouldn't "ourselves" be just an idea in your view? In which case, "ourselves" is a way of describing what? And then why wouldn't that just be an idea? Ad infinitum.

Ad infinitum doesn't bother me. It's just recursion.

It bothers you.

It doesn't bother me, I'm just asking with respect to your views. So what does it turn out that we're describing, and if it's only ideas, then why bother noting that something is "just an idea . . . it's a way of describing another idea"--that would be the case for every single thing in your view, no?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Man is not a factor that causes reality into being, not like that. That's also an illusion. Do you understand the difference between co-creating reality and indirect realism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

Your above is shooting blanks.

Did you read the article you linked properly?

• Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the accepted view of perception in natural science that states that we do not and cannot perceive the external world as it really is but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.[4] Representationalism is one of the key assumptions of cognitivism in psychology.
  The representational realist would deny that "first-hand knowledge" is a coherent concept, since knowledge is always via some means, and argue instead that our ideas of the world are interpretations of sensory input derived from an external world that is real (unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but mind-independent things are not).

The idea in the OP is not about the external world as it really is by itself as in Indirect Realism.

The reality co-created by humans collectively is the external-world-by human_selves. Btw, this is not based on idealism per se.

Note the significant difference.

That's not in English I can recognize.

Actually it is philosophy that is beyond your silo that you cannot recognize

By 'reality' do you mean the consensus assumed picture (idea) of the external world?
If yes, then how can humans be 'in' an idea?

Note there are two senses of reality here,
1. The reality-as-it-is
2. The reality-as-it-is as described, verified, justified and agreed with consensus.

The reality-as-it-is comprises both the internal and external world as a whole.
This wholeness of reality is "co-created" by humans collectively.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not going to explain above in thorough details,

Now there's a surprise.

So do you think that humans existed prior to anything else?

No, humans did not exist prior to anything else.

Your problem is, your focus is always from 'what-was' to 'what-IS'.
What is most effective is to reflect top-down from 'WHAT-IS' [existing humans] to 'WHAT-WAS'.
Then you will reach a point where Wittgenstein demanded you [and all] just literally
shut-up!

• "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

[Atla]

That's not in English I can recognize.

Actually it is philosophy that is beyond your silo that you cannot recognize

By 'reality' do you mean the consensus assumed picture (idea) of the external world?
If yes, then how can humans be 'in' an idea?

Note there are two senses of reality here,
1. The reality-as-it-is
2. The reality-as-it-is as described, verified, justified and agreed with consensus.

The reality-as-it-is comprises both the internal and external world as a whole.
This wholeness of reality is "co-created" by humans collectively.

If you were good at philosophy, you would have learned to communicate by now. Once you do, you'll be surprised to learn that many people are already ahead of you.

For example googling 'external world by human selves' gives 0 results.
'reality co-created by humans collectively' 0 results
'reality co-created by humans' 1 result
'wholeness of reality is "co-created" by humans collectively' is also not really English.

Anyway, okay so you literally seem to be saying that the totality of reality is co-created by humans. Humans literally create the entire universe somehow. Why do you think that humans literally create the entire universe?