What is your Framework and System of Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Metaphysics is what determines proof as proof, there is no other FSK which defines the nature of proof other than metaphysics. The emptiness of all phenomena can be observed through metaphysics given the continual progression of one phenomenon to another, which is repeated, shows an inherent emptiness of the individual state.

Science does not determine proof as what constitutes what a proof actually is cannot be tested. In simpler terms there is no test for what constitutes proof other than repeatability, and what defines repeatability is subject to metaphysics. Science is an off branch of metaphysics.

Dually utility is not an FSK considering utility is subject to subjective parameters. What is deemed useful is deemed as subjective as what is subjective determines what has use. What has use for one person does not have use for another.

Word salad.

[Eodnhoj7]

Metaphysics is what determines proof as proof, there is no other FSK which defines the nature of proof other than metaphysics. The emptiness of all phenomena can be observed through metaphysics given the continual progression of one phenomenon to another, which is repeated, shows an inherent emptiness of the individual state.

Science does not determine proof as what constitutes what a proof actually is cannot be tested. In simpler terms there is no test for what constitutes proof other than repeatability, and what defines repeatability is subject to metaphysics. Science is an off branch of metaphysics.

Dually utility is not an FSK considering utility is subject to subjective parameters. What is deemed useful is deemed as subjective as what is subjective determines what has use. What has use for one person does not have use for another.

Word salad.

No it is just beyond your awareness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Metaphysics is what determines proof as proof, there is no other FSK which defines the nature of proof other than metaphysics. The emptiness of all phenomena can be observed through metaphysics given the continual progression of one phenomenon to another, which is repeated, shows an inherent emptiness of the individual state.

Science does not determine proof as what constitutes what a proof actually is cannot be tested. In simpler terms there is no test for what constitutes proof other than repeatability, and what defines repeatability is subject to metaphysics. Science is an off branch of metaphysics.

Dually utility is not an FSK considering utility is subject to subjective parameters. What is deemed useful is deemed as subjective as what is subjective determines what has use. What has use for one person does not have use for another.

Word salad.

No it is just beyond your awareness.

There is a sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophically justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

[Eodnhoj7]

Word salad.

No it is just beyond your awareness.

There is a sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophically justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

Word salad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No it is just beyond your awareness.

There is a sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophically justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

Word salad.

Yes, that's word salad which I had deliberately mirrored what you were spouting.

[Skepdick]

There is a sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophically justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

That's so awesome! I knew there was an explanation for my lucky streak.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is a sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophically justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

Word salad.

Yes, that's word salad which I had deliberately mirrored what you were spouting.

Again, another word salad. You fail to realize there are some consciousness' beyond yours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Word salad.

Yes, that's word salad which I had deliberately mirrored what you were spouting.

Again, another word salad. You fail to realize there are some consciousness' beyond yours.

Yes there are some sort of consciousness in some animals beyond mine. But these whatever consciousness disappear upon physical death of the animals.

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, whatever you claim as real you'll need to justify it empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You are not doing any justification at all but merely making words salad and noises which are literally nonsense, i.e. nonsensical.

• I can see there is a nude sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
  Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophical justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, that's word salad which I had deliberately mirrored what you were spouting.

Again, another word salad. You fail to realize there are some consciousness' beyond yours.

Yes there are some sort of consciousness in some animals beyond mine. But these whatever consciousness disappear upon physical death of the animals.

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, whatever you claim as real you'll need to justify it empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You are not doing any justification at all but merely making words salad and noises which are literally nonsense, i.e. nonsensical.

• I can see there is a nude sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
  Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophical justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

Empiricality and reason are FSKs which are empty in themselves this depends upon FSKs beyond them (ie pure observation, aka metaphysics). Where is the proof consciousness is negated upon death?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, another word salad. You fail to realize there are some consciousness' beyond yours.

Yes there are some sort of consciousness in some animals beyond mine. But these whatever consciousness disappear upon physical death of the animals.

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, whatever you claim as real you'll need to justify it empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You are not doing any justification at all but merely making words salad and noises which are literally nonsense, i.e. nonsensical.

• I can see there is a nude sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
  Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophical justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

Empiricality and reason are FSKs which are empty in themselves this depends upon FSKs beyond them (ie pure observation, aka metaphysics). Where is the proof consciousness is negated upon death?

How come you are so stupid in regard to this common sense knowledge?
Do you have proof a corpse is conscious?

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes there are some sort of consciousness in some animals beyond mine. But these whatever consciousness disappear upon physical death of the animals.

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, whatever you claim as real you'll need to justify it empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
You are not doing any justification at all but merely making words salad and noises which are literally nonsense, i.e. nonsensical.

• I can see there is a nude sexy spirit/ghost hovering and following you all the time and driving you with the above ideas.
  Don't ask me for evidence, empirical and philosophical justification, because it is beyond your awareness.

Empiricality and reason are FSKs which are empty in themselves this depends upon FSKs beyond them (ie pure observation, aka metaphysics). Where is the proof consciousness is negated upon death?

How come you are so stupid in regard to this common sense knowledge?
Do you have proof a corpse is conscious?

1. One FSK is dependent upon another FSK beyond it. Eventually this regresses to metaphysics

2. Do you have proof consciousness ends at death, ie consciousness only results from organisms? You would have to define consciousness to fit your argument considering consciousness is pattern formation and this pattern formation, ie reality, changes to another pattern after death.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empiricality and reason are FSKs which are empty in themselves this depends upon FSKs beyond them (ie pure observation, aka metaphysics). Where is the proof consciousness is negated upon death?

How come you are so stupid in regard to this common sense knowledge?
Do you have proof a corpse is conscious?

1. One FSK is dependent upon another FSK beyond it. Eventually this regresses to metaphysics

There is no need to regress to Metaphysics.
Rational people do not resort to metaphysics which deal with the illusory.
It is only the delusional [like you] who cling to the illusory things of metaphysics which is not grounded on possible experience and knowledge.

True one FSK relies upon input from many other FSKs, but there is an acceptance of the limits of the respective FSK to what is empirically possible and philosophically sound.

Take the scientific FSK for example where scientific theories are qualified to the conditions of the FSK.
What is critical is whether the scientific claims are testable, repeatable, justifiable and credible to be used for the progress of humanity.

2. Do you have proof consciousness ends at death, ie consciousness only results from organisms? You would have to define consciousness to fit your argument considering consciousness is pattern formation and this pattern formation, ie reality, changes to another pattern after death.

Note the meaning of 'consciousness'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consciousness?s=t
It is obvious a person who is certified to be brain death do not possess the above sort of consciousness.

As usual you are being rhetorical and trying to squeeze meanings of real things into your illusory metaphysical world of delusions.
I have explained why you are reifying the illusory is due to very desperate psychology of existential dissonance at the unconscious levels of your mind.

Btw, what do you gain by insisting there is a soul [with consciousness] that survives physical death.

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't read through every post, so direct me to the post(s) in question if this was addressed already, but what exactly would you say the necessary and sufficient criteria are for a "framework and system of reality" or "framework and system of knowledge"?

You suggested that there is a general scientific FSR, and that it's different than a chemistry FSR, an astronomy FSR, etc. This seems like a very vague idea to me, and it seems very dubious that it would give more weight to any claim.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I didn't read through every post, so direct me to the post(s) in question if this was addressed already, but what exactly would you say the necessary and sufficient criteria are for a "framework and system of reality" or "framework and system of knowledge"?

I presume you are asking me the above?

All Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge must leveraged and be conditioned upon its constitution [implied or explicit] with all the relevant requirements, mechanisms, processes, etc..

For example if say the Scientific FSR/FSK has its specific criteria [s] that enable a theory to qualify as a scientific theory.
The main requirements is scientists must comply with the scientific methods, peer reviews and other requirements.

In addition, 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.

viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

You suggested that there is a general scientific FSR, and that it's different than a chemistry FSR, an astronomy FSR, etc. This seems like a very vague idea to me, and it seems very dubious that it would give more weight to any claim.

Note the requirements of the scientific FSK above which is general.

The Chemistry FSR/FSK is a sub-FSK of the Scientific FSK.
Whilst the Chemistry FSR/FSK must adopt the imperative conditions of the scientific FSK, the chemistry FSK has its specific features, where it will cover chemical combinations and reactions which is distinct from say Physics and biology.

The FSR/FSK is very critical to any knowledge claim, as the first thing that is needed is to understand which FSR/FSK should a claim be subjected to. Surely what is chemistry is not suitable to deal within biology.
Thus whatever fact is to be verified and justified it must always be qualified to a specific FSK, e.g. Science, legal, economics, sports, medical, astronomy, anthropology, chemistry, physics, etc.

At the fringe,
that the fact, the current Miss Universe is Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa, is only a fact as qualified to the Miss Universe Organizational FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't read through every post, so direct me to the post(s) in question if this was addressed already, but what exactly would you say the necessary and sufficient criteria are for a "framework and system of reality" or "framework and system of knowledge"?

I presume you are asking me the above?

All Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge must leveraged and be conditioned upon its constitution [implied or explicit] with all the relevant requirements, mechanisms, processes, etc..

For example if say the Scientific FSR/FSK has its specific criteria [s] that enable a theory to qualify as a scientific theory.
The main requirements is scientists must comply with the scientific methods, peer reviews and other requirements.

In addition, 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.

viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

You suggested that there is a general scientific FSR, and that it's different than a chemistry FSR, an astronomy FSR, etc. This seems like a very vague idea to me, and it seems very dubious that it would give more weight to any claim.

Note the requirements of the scientific FSK above which is general.

The Chemistry FSR/FSK is a sub-FSK of the Scientific FSK.
Whilst the Chemistry FSR/FSK must adopt the imperative conditions of the scientific FSK, the chemistry FSK has its specific features, where it will cover chemical combinations and reactions which is distinct from say Physics and biology.

The FSR/FSK is very critical to any knowledge claim, as the first thing that is needed is to understand which FSR/FSK should a claim be subjected to. Surely what is chemistry is not suitable to deal within biology.
Thus whatever fact is to be verified and justified it must always be qualified to a specific FSK, e.g. Science, legal, economics, sports, medical, astronomy, anthropology, chemistry, physics, etc.

At the fringe,
that the fact, the current Miss Universe is Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa, is only a fact as qualified to the Miss Universe Organizational FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

What you're describing isn't a general set of necessary and sufficient criteria for something to count as a "framework and structure of reality/knowledge" though, which was what I was curious about.

It sounds like you're simply describing some characteristics of various fields, characteristics that make the field that field rather than something else, and then noting that certain claims don't fit with what conventionally makes the field in question the field it is. So, for example, saying that a particular grocery store usually has red velvet cake wouldn't be a claim in astronomy, and a claim about covalent bonds wouldn't be a claim about musical composition. Which is cogent insofar as it goes, but I'm not sure what the relevance or importance of it is.