Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality

[Iwannaplato]

That's why in scientific research revealed preferences are more effective/trustworthy measure of people's preferences than people's own words about what they prefer.

Jesus Christ!
Just a short note. I'll need to get to other matters for a while.
But man, I've dabbled in so many subjects and read probably too much in too many fields, discussed with a vast array of professional types - given some of my job roles and then overall curiosity, lived in a few countries, and so on...
and no one I have ever discussed things with online has linked me to so many topics/concepts, I haven't had contact with before.
It's like you (or I) grew up on an island with a very separate curriculum from the mainland schools. Anyway I appreciate it.

[Skepdick]

That's why in scientific research revealed preferences are more effective/trustworthy measure of people's preferences than people's own words about what they prefer.

Jesus Christ!
Just a short note. I'll need to get to other matters for a while.
But man, I've dabbled in so many subjects and read probably too much in too many fields, discussed with a vast array of professional types - given some of my job roles and then overall curiosity, lived in a few countries, and so on...
and no one I have ever discussed things with online has linked me to so many topics/concepts, I haven't had contact with before.
It's like you (or I) grew up on an island with a very separate curriculum from the mainland schools. Anyway I appreciate it.

Yeah... There was no curriculum in the school of autodidactism

The student pursues their own curiosity.

[popeye1945]

Humans along with other types of organisms, create their own reality from the experiences of the energies of the outer world processed through their biology. The energy becomes manifested as the world of objects, or apparent reality. Reality is the experience of the affected senses becoming known to consciousness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans along with other types of organisms, create their own reality from the experiences of the energies of the outer world processed through their biology. The energy becomes manifested as the world of objects, or apparent reality. Reality is the experience of the affected senses becoming known to consciousness.

Therefore, ???
What is you end-game?

I can agree with the above to a certain degree, but you cannot assert the above without the necessary qualifications; ultimately the whole of the above is conditioned upon human-based FSKs.

The reality and truth of 'what is energy' is merely conditioned upon the human-based science-Physics FSK.
Whatever is 'biological' is conditioned upon the human-based science-biology FSK.

Therefore the essence of the above is;
-all facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.

Reality is the experience of the affected senses becoming known to consciousness.

The above sense-experiences can possibly results in hallucinations, illusions and delusions.

This is why we need to condition sense-experience upon a specific human based FSK, there is no exception to it.
With a human based FSK we can filter and differentiate sense-experience between the more real and the illusions. e.g. relying on the scientific-FSK [the most reliable and credible] to isolate what is realistic from the illusory.

[Peter Holmes]

-all facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.

1 This conjunction is false, because what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - a thing that has nothing to do with knowledge and the truth of a description.

2 A 'truth' in this context is a true factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - a declarative sentence. And any truth-claim is contextual and conventional. So, yes, such a 'truth' always depends on one or other discipline or discourse.

3 The claim, 'all knowledge [is] conditioned upon a specific human based framework and system of knowledge', is either trivially true because circular - or false, because alien knowledge would not be so conditioned. But the more accurate claim, 'all human knowledge is conditioned upon a specific human based framework and system of knowledge' is trivially true because circular.

4 No 3 above above assumes the condition 'conditioned upon' is explained and precise. But it's unexplained and hopelessly vague.

The quoted premise is false, or at least not shown to be true. What we call a fact does not emerge from and exist within a framework and system of knowledge. So VA's argument fails.

[Veritas Aequitas]

-all facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.

1 This conjunction is false, because what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - a thing that has nothing to do with knowledge and the truth of a description.

If that is the case, then it [that thing] is a mystical creature and woo woo.
If not, produce evidence that such a thing [your fact] exists as real.

Note I have challenged you many times,
PH 'what is fact is illusory"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have yet to counter my above claim.

2 A 'truth' in this context is a true factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - a declarative sentence. And any truth-claim is contextual and conventional. So, yes, such a 'truth' always depends on one or other discipline or discourse.

You're only a philosophical gnat and you're deceiving yourself with such high grandeur without philosophical justifications.

You banking on linguistic truths from the human based linguistic FSK is too flimsy.

How can your linguistic-FSK truths be compared to my 'what is truth' based on the human-based scientific FSK in terms of credibility and reliability?
Show me yours 'truths' are more credible and reliable?

3 The claim, 'all knowledge [is] conditioned upon a specific human based framework and system of knowledge', is either trivially true because circular - or false, because alien knowledge would not be so conditioned. But the more accurate claim, 'all human knowledge is conditioned upon a specific human based framework and system of knowledge' is trivially true because circular.

That All scientific truths and knowledge as conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK is circular and trivial?
You are making yourself stupid if you think so.

4 No 3 above above assumes the condition 'conditioned upon' is explained and precise. But it's unexplained and hopelessly vague.

The quoted premise is false, or at least not shown to be true. What we call a fact does not emerge from and exist within a framework and system of knowledge. So VA's argument fails.

You are making the above claims based on your ignorant, shallow, narrow and dogmatic ideological view grounded on philosophical realism.

Btw, you just don't have any intellectual integrity at all, i.e. you have not provided a single reference to support your points.
You are picking your point from the air.

[Iwannaplato]

My Point: Morality is Objective.

A What is Being Realistic:

• Reality is All-there-is.
  All-there-is includes all human beings.
  Therefore, Reality cannot be absolutely independent of humans*.
  or
  Therefore, Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]

* i.e. the human conditions.

Which obviously leads to....

My Point: Morality is Objective.

A What is Being Realistic:

• Reality is All-there-is.
  All-there-is includes all Peter Holmes.
  Therefore, Reality cannot be absolutely independent of Peter Holmes*.
  or
  Therefore, Peter Holmes is Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]

Objective morality is based on Peter Holmes' values and all FSKs are not independent from Peter Holmes' nor his values.

All moralities are all conditioned on beer cans, colon parasites and pre-wash undies.

[Agent Smith]

This is a really great sales pitch! I'm not even gonna ask for credentials. You win! How much?

Frankly, I didn't realize it was this simple until the OP. Deus Magnus Est.

Call the cops ... I mean the ... the ... who cares! We've struck gold!

[popeye1945]

The foundation of all religions is the unavoidable conclusion that we are all part of something larger than ourselves, religions just stretch that sense into a fantasy world. Humans, the title thread says, are intricately part and parcel of reality, this again is that sense showing through we are all part of something larger than ourselves. What most people consider reality is our everyday experience, but this is not what is out there, apparent reality is a biological readout, in other words, what is processed and projected through us as the world of objects are simply the alterations made to our biologizes by the energies that surround us. This is a world known only to biological subjects/or forms of life, it is a readout, as in biological readout. The energies that are the world, play us like an instrument, and as organisms, we are in fact reactionary, reactionary organisms. All things are cause to other things; all energies are caused to their surrounding energies. In this circumstance consciousness is the wild card, for it contains a human creature that believes it is the only creature as part of the whole/earth, that is aware of itself as the earth. This through the generations has caused a willful lobotomy, which amounts to willful alienation, termed free will. This free will infers control to a degree not only delusional and egocentric but is as a disease to the whole body/the earth. We must shed ourselves from this disorientation as a way of being in the world, or parish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The foundation of all religions is the unavoidable conclusion that we are all part of something larger than ourselves, religions just stretch that sense into a fantasy world. Humans, the title thread says, are intricately part and parcel of reality, this again is that sense showing through we are all part of something larger than ourselves.

The main religions [Abrahamic and others] do postulate "Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality."
Rather they assert humans are entities created by God and are independent from God, thus do not focus on the point that they are a part of something larger than themselves.

This is the same for philosophical realists who insist reality is independent of the human conditions or human minds.

This is the reason, realists like PH deny moral objectivity because to them, there cannot be any moral facts that can exist as mind-independent entities. To them whatever the moral elements, they are always subjective and thus can never the mind-independent.

However, where Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality - morality can be objective;

1. Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]
2. All facts of reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK sustained by a collective of subjects not ONE subject - thus objective.
3. Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.
4. Therefore, morality is objective.

What most people consider reality is our everyday experience, but this is not what is out there, apparent reality is a biological readout, in other words, what is processed and projected through us as the world of objects are simply the alterations made to our biologizes by the energies that surround us. This is a world known only to biological subjects/or forms of life, it is a readout, as in biological readout. The energies that are the world, play us like an instrument, and as organisms, we are in fact reactionary, reactionary organisms. All things are cause to other things; all energies are caused to their surrounding energies. In this circumstance consciousness is the wild card, for it contains a human creature that believes it is the only creature as part of the whole/earth, that is aware of itself as the earth. This through the generations has caused a willful lobotomy, which amounts to willful alienation, termed free will. This free will infers control to a degree not only delusional and egocentric but is as a disease to the whole body/the earth. We must shed ourselves from this disorientation as a way of being in the world, or parish.

In my case, there is no such differentiation between apparent-reality and real-reality.

Whatever is reality is always conditioned within a human-based FSK.
As such, whenever any claim 'reality exists' the question to ask therefrom is;
based or conditioned [predicated] upon which human-based FSK?

The term "reality is" or "reality exists" is groundless, empty and meaningless without the essential predicate, i.e. the conditioned human-based FSK.

"Exist" or "is" is not a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula to connect the object with its predicate.

"the apple exists' is actually meaningless if deliberated seriously.
However, it make sense to state, "the apple exists as a fruit as conditioned within the science-biology FSK" which opens up its verification and justification processes based on the empirical, philosophical reasonings within its specific human based FSK.

[popeye1945]

The main religions [Abrahamic and others] do postulate "Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality."
Rather they assert humans are entities created by God and are independent from God, thus do not focus on the point that they are a part of something larger than themselves. This is the same for philosophical realists who insist reality is independent of the human conditions or human minds. This is the reason, realists like PH deny moral objectivity because to them, there cannot be any moral facts that can exist as mind-independent entities. To them whatever the moral elements, they are always subjective and thus can never the mind-independent.

That religions do not focus upon humanity or organisms in general as parts of something larger than themselves, this is the seed of the concept of free will and the foundation of the principle of sin itself, a most unhealthy master-slave relationship with an imaginary friend/father figure and/or dictator. How could the religious claim to be independent from God, if they are frightened to death of the master, where they might if they get it wrong burn in hell forever and a day? Yes, it is true the only objectivity that could pretend to objectivity is the unmanifested energies that surround us which have not be processed by biological consciousness and projected as apparent reality, there is no such thing otherwise of objectivity, it is all subjective experiences owned by the conscious subject and then bestowed upon an utterly meaningless world. Subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, the energies/objects and the mind ceases to be, take away the conscious subject and the physical world ceases to be on a subjective level, all that might seem remain, the unknown energies of ultimate reality.

However, where Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality - morality can be objective;
1. Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]
2. All facts of reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK sustained by a collective of subjects not ONE subject - thus objective.
3. Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.
4. Therefore, morality is objective. [/quote]

First, what does FSK stand for? A quote from Schopenhauer. " When a conscious subject close its eyes in death a world ceases to be." While it is true there is no physical reality in the absence of biological consciousness the subjective experiences of living a life must vary one to the next. There are no such things as moral facts due to the fact that all meaning is biologically dependent, when one identifies with another compassion for its suffering arises and through this subjective compassion morality starts to form and in particular in social groups of like kinds. The easier it is to identify with other the greater the compassion and the more likely that biological sensitivity will find biological expression as an extension of said biology. There is only one way to know the outside world, the physical world and that is through one's own subjectivity, there simply is no other

In my case, there is no such differentiation between apparent-reality and real-reality.
Whatever is reality is always conditioned within a human-based FSK.
As such, whenever any claim 'reality exists' the question to ask therefrom is;
based or conditioned [predicated] upon which human-based FSK? [/quote]

You are creating confusion for yourself; words are abstracts like concepts. Words are qualifications and/or limitations excellent for finding that which is real, but the word is not the thing. The holy grail of life is experience and only biological subjects experience. " Those who know the most, must mourn the deepest orr the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life." Tymeson, I think

The term "reality is" or "reality exists" is groundless, empty and meaningless without the essential predicate, i.e. the conditioned human-based FSK.
"Exist" or "is" is not a predicate. "Is" is merely a copula to connect the object with its predicate. [/quote] The apple exists' is actually meaningless if deliberated seriously.
However, it make sense to state, "the apple exists as a fruit as conditioned within the science-biology FSK" which opens up its verification and justification processes based on the empirical, philosophical reasonings within its specific human based FSK.
[/quote]

You are off on an unproductive tangent, words and concepts are tools to describe experience, again, experience is the holy grail.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The main religions [Abrahamic and others] do NOT postulate "Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality."
Rather they assert humans are entities created by God and are independent from God, thus do not focus on the point that they are a part of something larger than themselves. This is the same for philosophical realists who insist reality is independent of the human conditions or human minds. This is the reason, realists like PH deny moral objectivity because to them, there cannot be any moral facts that can exist as mind-independent entities. To them whatever the moral elements, they are always subjective and thus can never the mind-independent.

That religions do not focus upon humanity or organisms in general as parts of something larger than themselves, this is the seed of the concept of free will and the foundation of the principle of sin itself, a most unhealthy master-slave relationship with an imaginary friend/father figure and/or dictator. How could the religious claim to be independent from God, if they are frightened to death of the master, where they might if they get it wrong burn in hell forever and a day? Yes, it is true the only objectivity that could pretend to objectivity is the unmanifested energies that surround us which have not be processed by biological consciousness and projected as apparent reality, there is no such thing otherwise of objectivity, it is all subjective experiences owned by the conscious subject and then bestowed upon an utterly meaningless world. Subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, the energies/objects and the mind ceases to be, take away the conscious subject and the physical world ceases to be on a subjective level, all that might seem remain, the unknown energies of ultimate reality.

However, where Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality - morality can be objective;
1. Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]
2. All facts of reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK sustained by a collective of subjects not ONE subject - thus objective.
3. Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.
4. Therefore, morality is objective.

First, what does FSK stand for? A quote from Schopenhauer. " When a conscious subject close its eyes in death a world ceases to be." While it is true there is no physical reality in the absence of biological consciousness the subjective experiences of living a life must vary one to the next.
There are no such things as moral facts due to the fact that all meaning is biologically dependent, when one identifies with another compassion for its suffering arises and through this subjective compassion morality starts to form and in particular in social groups of like kinds.
The easier it is to identify with other the greater the compassion and the more likely that biological sensitivity will find biological expression as an extension of said biology. There is only one way to know the outside world, the physical world and that is through one's own subjectivity, there simply is no other

In my case, there is no such differentiation between apparent-reality and real-reality.
Whatever is reality is always conditioned within a human-based FSK.
As such, whenever any claim 'reality exists' the question to ask therefrom is;
based or conditioned [predicated] upon which human-based FSK?

You are creating confusion for yourself; words are abstracts like concepts. Words are qualifications and/or limitations excellent for finding that which is real, but the word is not the thing. The holy grail of life is experience and only biological subjects experience. " Those who know the most, must mourn the deepest orr the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life." Tymeson, I think

The term "reality is" or "reality exists" is groundless, empty and meaningless without the essential predicate, i.e. the conditioned human-based FSK.
"Exist" or "is" is not a predicate. "Is" is merely a copula to connect the object with its predicate.

The apple exists' is actually meaningless if deliberated seriously.
However, it make sense to state, "the apple exists as a fruit as conditioned within the science-biology FSK" which opens up its verification and justification processes based on the empirical, philosophical reasonings within its specific human based FSK.

You are off on an unproductive tangent, words and concepts are tools to describe experience, again, experience is the holy grail.

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
  A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivi ... losophy%29

Thus as long as a proposition is deliberated within an organized group of subject [not one subject] then it is objective.

First, what does FSK stand for?
I am very surprised you do not understand that by now ? Note this;
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

Whatever is deliberated within a human-based FSK is objective, i.e. via a collective of subjects thus via the individual subjects.

As such, All scientific facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] with its constitution and conditions.

All scientific facts are objective.
Do you deny this?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

ALL facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
Including 'ALL facts' are moral facts which are conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK.
Therefore moral facts exist, are objective and thus morality is objective.

It is not all about experiences, words, concepts, etc. but what is critical is whether these can be translated to moral actions that are good for the progress of humanity.

[Agent Smith]

Read a ... I mean ... the book and there's a 47% chance the truth'll be revealed ta ye. Please note ... ye'll havta read another book before ye read the book ... and another before that ... are ye gonna ask me ta stop or do you have time fer this? If ye've got what it takes, ye'll not wash the dishes.

[Peter Holmes]

The assertion humans are intricately part and parcel of reality is factual. In other words, it claims something about reality that is or isn't the case: a claim that's true if it is the case, and false if it isn't.

I think the claim is self-evidently true: we humans are features of reality - we are real things. And I think this is a fact - a fact that has nothing to do with a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

[popeye1945]

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
  A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivi ... losophy%29

Thus as long as a proposition is deliberated within an organized group of subjects [not one subject] then it is objective.

First, what does FSK stand for?
I am very surprised you do not understand that by now. Note this;
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

What is considered objective is the collective subjective agreement of an experience. All knowledge is subjective knowledge. That which is formally recorded and felt trustworthy is secondary subjective knowledge and taken on faith until an individual can verify the truth of the recorded information by personal subjective experience. Reality is a simulation of the experiences of subjective consciousness or a biological readout which is true to species. " I am very surprised you do not understand that by now." You cannot expect everyone to understand your personal quirks, be specific if you wish to be understood.

Whatever is deliberated within a human-based FSK is objective, i.e. via a collective of subjects thus via the individual subjects.
As such, All scientific facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] with its constitution and conditions.
All scientific facts are objective.
Do you deny this?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Truth/fact to the individual is experience, to the group it is agreement of their personal experiences. A collective of individual experiences.

ALL facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
Including 'ALL facts' are moral facts which are conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK.
Therefore, moral facts exist, are objective and thus morality is objective.
It is not all about experiences, words, concepts, etc. but what is critical is whether these can be translated to moral actions that are good for the progress of humanity.
[/quote]

All fact/truths are biologically dependent. There is only one way to know the world and that is on a personally subjective level. A collective statement of personal subjective experiences tends to have more authority than individual subjective experiences because the individual is more likely to be in error than the collective. Perhaps the individual's biology is in some way diminished, leading to error. The collective is simply a safeguard and is not itself infallible.