What is Fact is Intersubjective

[FlashDangerpants]

Dynamic spiral feedback: This suggests an iterative process where the FSR and FSK interact with each other, influencing and shaping each other in a continuous manner. This reflects the idea that our understanding of reality evolves over time through feedback loops.

Wait. Are you confessing that the morality-proper FSK continuously informs your view of reality to further reinforce your view of morality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dynamic spiral feedback: This suggests an iterative process where the FSR and FSK interact with each other, influencing and shaping each other in a continuous manner. This reflects the idea that our understanding of reality evolves over time through feedback loops.

Wait. Are you confessing that the morality-proper FSK continuously informs your view of reality to further reinforce your view of morality?

Yes, reinforced with greater clarity, objectivity, precision, rigor, and the like.

Yes, the morality-proper FSK is not a God given model but subject to improvements.
For example scientific facts of reality are at best polished conjectures, thus further feedback via the loop will continuously generate more polished conjectures.
As far as the morality-proper FSK it starts with very polished-conjectures as near as that the scientific polished conjectures, so rate of polishing for improvement is less than during the starting process.

The above similar to an analogy of continually improving in learning a skill where continuous feedback leads to greater improvements. In this case, it is the moral competence in unfolding one inherent moral potential.

The above is a general view but there are a lot of nuances to the above to be considered.

[FlashDangerpants]

Dynamic spiral feedback: This suggests an iterative process where the FSR and FSK interact with each other, influencing and shaping each other in a continuous manner. This reflects the idea that our understanding of reality evolves over time through feedback loops.

Wait. Are you confessing that the morality-proper FSK continuously informs your view of reality to further reinforce your view of morality?

Yes, reinforced with greater clarity, objectivity, precision, rigor, and the like.

Yes, the morality-proper FSK is not a God given model but subject to improvements.
For example scientific facts of reality are at best polished conjectures, thus further feedback via the loop will continuously generate more polished conjectures.
As far as the morality-proper FSK it starts with very polished-conjectures as near as that the scientific polished conjectures, so rate of polishing for improvement is less than during the starting process.

The above similar to an analogy of continually improving in learning a skill where continuous feedback leads to greater improvements. In this case, it is the moral competence in unfolding one inherent moral potential.

The above is a general view but there are a lot of nuances to the above to be considered.

And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?

So for instance mathematical realists say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wait. Are you confessing that the morality-proper FSK continuously informs your view of reality to further reinforce your view of morality?

Yes, reinforced with greater clarity, objectivity, precision, rigor, and the like.

Yes, the morality-proper FSK is not a God given model but subject to improvements.
For example scientific facts of reality are at best polished conjectures, thus further feedback via the loop will continuously generate more polished conjectures.
As far as the morality-proper FSK it starts with very polished-conjectures as near as that the scientific polished conjectures, so rate of polishing for improvement is less than during the starting process.

The above similar to an analogy of continually improving in learning a skill where continuous feedback leads to greater improvements. In this case, it is the moral competence in unfolding one inherent moral potential.

The above is a general view but there are a lot of nuances to the above to be considered.

And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?

So for instance mathematical realists say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.

The following point are the reasons why mathematical realists [and p-realists] say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.
The argument that numbers and mathematical properties are discovered, provide support for theists argument for God, i.e. they cannot come from nothing and the only tenable something has to be an omnipotent and omniscient God.
This leading to God is ugly, while the antirealist approach is more realistic.

To explain why the antirealist [Kantian*] is tenable is we have to link back to abiogenesis, unicellular organisms, evolution and evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.
* it cannot be any antirealist, it has to be specific and in my case is the Kantian antirealist.

I have explained it somewhere [should have open a separate thread for that for easy reference].
To facilitate basic survival [re food and threats] all living organisms are "programmed" with a sense of externalness, thus the more instinctual external world.
This >3 billion years old algorithm is adapted throughout evolution till the present humans.

This is the reason why humans are instinctually driven toward the external world that need to be discovered for basic survival re food, threats, new land, etc.
For >3 billion years attention is directed outward to the external, and it is only within the last 5000 years [could be less] that humans became aware there is an inner self that could influence how the external is cognized.

The point is as human evolved with their self-awareness and intelligence they are more aware of greater inner [psychological, diseases, etc.] and external local, global [pandemic, global warming] and galactical [rogue asteroids] threats compared to the past where they are concerned with finding their next meal within the surrounding external environment.
The awareness of greater threats demands attention to the inner human factors thus the more wider, deeper and advanced anti-realist [especially Kantian] view.
This is participatory [not invented] view rather than the discovered [of external reality] view.

The point is there were already philosophical savants [long ago 5000 years ago] who discovered the limitations of the discovered p-realist view [ideological], thus there seeking of alternative more effective views.
Most the the majority [like you, Peter and others] being instinctual with the p-realist views could understand the views of these savants* and some are even killed or forced to change their views to the default one.
* just in case, I am not one of them but merely a rational follower.

see this for my future reference:
Default Sense of Externalness Drive P-Realism
viewtopic.php?t=41885

[Sculptor]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

Given the point that facts are subjective...
It is such a shame that you do not possess the skill of joined up thinking.
If you did then your absurd claim that morals can be objective would be blown out of the water.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

Given the point that facts are subjective...
It is such a shame that you do not possess the skill of joined up thinking.
If you did then your absurd claim that morals can be objective would be blown out of the water.

This is so "strawmaning".

I never claimed facts are subjective ...
I claim facts [FSK-ed] are objective which is equivalent to intersubjective.
Note, intersubjective which is critically different from merely 'subjective'.
Try again without any strawman.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes, reinforced with greater clarity, objectivity, precision, rigor, and the like.

Yes, the morality-proper FSK is not a God given model but subject to improvements.
For example scientific facts of reality are at best polished conjectures, thus further feedback via the loop will continuously generate more polished conjectures.
As far as the morality-proper FSK it starts with very polished-conjectures as near as that the scientific polished conjectures, so rate of polishing for improvement is less than during the starting process.

The above similar to an analogy of continually improving in learning a skill where continuous feedback leads to greater improvements. In this case, it is the moral competence in unfolding one inherent moral potential.

The above is a general view but there are a lot of nuances to the above to be considered.

And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?

So for instance mathematical realists say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.

The following point are the reasons why mathematical realists [and p-realists] say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.
The argument that numbers and mathematical properties are discovered, provide support for theists argument for God, i.e. they cannot come from nothing and the only tenable something has to be an omnipotent and omniscient God.
This leading to God is ugly, while the antirealist approach is more realistic.

To explain why the antirealist [Kantian*] is tenable is we have to link back to abiogenesis, unicellular organisms, evolution and evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.
* it cannot be any antirealist, it has to be specific and in my case is the Kantian antirealist.

I have explained it somewhere [should have open a separate thread for that for easy reference].
To facilitate basic survival [re food and threats] all living organisms are "programmed" with a sense of externalness, thus the more instinctual external world.
This >3 billion years old algorithm is adapted throughout evolution till the present humans.

This is the reason why humans are instinctually driven toward the external world that need to be discovered for basic survival re food, threats, new land, etc.
For >3 billion years attention is directed outward to the external, and it is only within the last 5000 years [could be less] that humans became aware there is an inner self that could influence how the external is cognized.

The point is as human evolved with their self-awareness and intelligence they are more aware of greater inner [psychological, diseases, etc.] and external local, global [pandemic, global warming] and galactical [rogue asteroids] threats compared to the past where they are concerned with finding their next meal within the surrounding external environment.
The awareness of greater threats demands attention to the inner human factors thus the more wider, deeper and advanced anti-realist [especially Kantian] view.
This is participatory [not invented] view rather than the discovered [of external reality] view.

The point is there were already philosophical savants [long ago 5000 years ago] who discovered the limitations of the discovered p-realist view [ideological], thus there seeking of alternative more effective views.
Most the the majority [like you, Peter and others] being instinctual with the p-realist views could understand the views of these savants* and some are even killed or forced to change their views to the default one.
* just in case, I am not one of them but merely a rational follower.

see this for my future reference:
Default Sense of Externalness Drive P-Realism
viewtopic.php?t=41885

Let's just put the question again and see if you can answer it this time.

And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?

So for instance mathematical realists say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.

The following point are the reasons why mathematical realists [and p-realists] say that numbers and mathematical properties thereof are discovered, but antirealists say they are constructed or invented.

The argument that numbers and mathematical properties are discovered, provide support for theists argument for God, i.e. they cannot come from nothing and the only tenable something has to be an omnipotent and omniscient God.
This leading to God is ugly, while the antirealist approach is more realistic.

To explain why the antirealist [Kantian*] ...........
.........
(see details below)

Let's just put the question again and see if you can answer it this time.

And what is your understanding of the reasons why philosophers distinguish between that which is discovered and that which is invented?

Arrogant and condescending when you are the ignorant and blinded one.

• discover = to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time.
  
  invent: to produce (something, such as a useful device or process) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment

Here is an example in differentiating discover and invent;
PR discovered a watch on a beach that was invented by PPR in his workshop [PPR lost it while testing it in seawater].

In the above case, 'discover' imply Philosophical_Realism and "invent" imply ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, i.e. whatever the thing it has something to do with humans [mind or body] influence, thus contra Philosophical Realism.

In the same with, 'discovering' of numbers which imply Philosophical_Realism while "inventing" numbers by humans imply ANTI-Philosophical_Realsim, i.e. whatever the number it has something to do with humans' [mind or body] influence, thus contra Philosophical Realism.

ANTI-philosophical_realists argued philosophical_realism is not tenable nor realistic.
Kantian ANTI-philosophical_realists argued their Transcendental_Idealism-Empirical_Realism is tenable and realistic in claiming objective reality.

Here are the Kantian ANTI-philosophical_realists explanation to support their claim;
ANTI-philosophical_realists.

To explain why the antirealist [Kantian*] is tenable is we have to link back to abiogenesis, unicellular organisms, evolution and evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.
* it cannot be any antirealist, it has to be specific and in my case is the Kantian antirealist.

I have explained it somewhere [should have open a separate thread for that for easy reference].
To facilitate basic survival [re food and threats] all living organisms are "programmed" with a sense of externalness, thus the more instinctual external world.
This >3 billion years old algorithm is adapted throughout evolution till the present humans.

This is the reason why humans are instinctually driven toward the external world that need to be discovered for basic survival re food, threats, new land, etc.
For >3 billion years attention is directed outward to the external, and it is only within the last 5000 years [could be less] that humans became aware there is an inner self that could influence how the external is cognized.

The point is as human evolved with their self-awareness and intelligence they are more aware of greater inner [psychological, diseases, etc.] and external local, global [pandemic, global warming] and galactical [rogue asteroids] threats compared to the past where they are concerned with finding their next meal within the surrounding external environment.
The awareness of greater threats demands attention to the inner human factors thus the more wider, deeper and advanced anti-realist [especially Kantian] view.
This is participatory [not invented] view rather than the discovered [of external reality] view.

The point is there were already philosophical savants [long ago 5000 years ago] who discovered the limitations of the discovered p-realist view [ideological], thus there seeking of alternative more effective views.
Most the the majority [like you, Peter and others] being instinctual with the p-realist views could understand the views of these savants* and some are even killed or forced to change their views to the default one.
* just in case, I am not one of them but merely a rational follower.

see this for my future reference:
Default Sense of Externalness Drive P-Realism
viewtopic.php?t=41885

Tell me how and where the above explanation fall short of your question?

[FlashDangerpants]

Tell me how and where the above explanation fall short of your question?

I was asking why they distinguish. Why they even mention that the two things are different. You are answering by saying why (or why you think) realists like to say discover and antirealists like to say invent. This does not explain why they distinguish, relying instead on the fact that they do.

You are being invited to notice for yourself that you are trying to both discover and invent the same things because you are a global antirealist trying to "discover" only one category of fact and the use it to manufacture itself via what you like to think of as a self-reinforcing spiral.... but circles self-reinforce, spirals do not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Tell me how and where the above explanation fall short of your question?

I was asking why they distinguish. Why they even mention that the two things are different. You are answering by saying why (or why you think) realists like to say discover and antirealists like to say invent. This does not explain why they distinguish, relying instead on the fact that they do.

I don't see why the term 'distinguish' is so critical in this case.

For efficiency sake in communication it necessary to distinguish different terms to ensure there is no mixed up, conflation of terms, etc.
Thus the basic reasons why philosophers distinguish between 'discover' and 'invent' is to ensure clarity.

But to be philosophical, then they have to define each term and seek consensus to avoid talking pass each other. Then to explain their position of the issues.

That is what I did.

You are being invited to notice for yourself that you are trying to both discover and invent the same things because you are a global antirealist trying to "discover" only one category of fact and the use it to manufacture itself via what you like to think of as a self-reinforcing spiral.... but circles self-reinforce, spirals do not.

I believe you are going off tangent from the OP.

In nature there is no absolute circle, what we have are spirals in different time, e.g. a in evolution. T2 cannot circle back to t1.

[FlashDangerpants]

Dynamic spiral feedback: This suggests an iterative process where the FSR and FSK interact with each other, influencing and shaping each other in a continuous manner. This reflects the idea that our understanding of reality evolves over time through feedback loops.

So are moral facts constructed by this process or discovered by it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dynamic spiral feedback: This suggests an iterative process where the FSR and FSK interact with each other, influencing and shaping each other in a continuous manner. This reflects the idea that our understanding of reality evolves over time through feedback loops.

So are moral facts constructed by this process or discovered by it?

It is not that simple in my case with morality, there are a lot of nuances to it.

First, the usual,
my principle is all facts, knowledge, reality, truths and objectivity are conditioned or contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

In this case, moral facts emerged and are realized within a FSR and perceived, known and described via a FSK which has near equivalence objectivity to that of the scientific FSRK.

What emerged, is realized, perceive, known and described is incorporated into the Moral FSRK as an ideal moral standard as a guide to facilitate moral progress within humanity.

In addition, since there is no mind-independent objective, what we have a continual improvement of the moral standard via the feedback of the FSK [t1] onto the FSR [t2] of a self-reference basis within a spiral [not a circle].

In the case, the moral standard as a guide whilst consistent over a long time could change with circumstances thus not absolute and fixed eternally.

There is no need for me to use the term 'construct' nor discover in this case.
It need to, I could include the above within Constructivism and there is no question of it being discovered within the philosophical context.

[FlashDangerpants]

Dynamic spiral feedback: This suggests an iterative process where the FSR and FSK interact with each other, influencing and shaping each other in a continuous manner. This reflects the idea that our understanding of reality evolves over time through feedback loops.

So are moral facts constructed by this process or discovered by it?

It is not that simple in my case with morality, there are a lot of nuances to it.

First, the usual,
my principle is all facts, knowledge, reality, truths and objectivity are conditioned or contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

In this case, moral facts emerged and are realized within a FSR and perceived, known and described via a FSK which has near equivalence objectivity to that of the scientific FSRK.

What emerged, is realized, perceive, known and described is incorporated into the Moral FSRK as an ideal moral standard as a guide to facilitate moral progress within humanity.

In addition, since there is no mind-independent objective, what we have a continual improvement of the moral standard via the feedback of the FSK [t1] onto the FSR [t2] of a self-reference basis within a spiral [not a circle].

In the case, the moral standard as a guide whilst consistent over a long time could change with circumstances thus not absolute and fixed eternally.

There is no need for me to use the term 'construct' nor discover in this case.
It need to, I could include the above within Constructivism and there is no question of it being discovered within the philosophical context.

So you are both creating and discovering the same thing. And so is everybody else.

That's moral relativism. Others can create a different thing to discover than you create, and there is in your own words "no mind-independent objective" by which to DISCOVER that they are mistaken.

That is why real philosophers distinguish between discover and invent. Because it determines what is fact vs what is convention.

[Skepdick]

That is why real philosophers distinguish between discover and invent. Because it determines what is fact vs what is convention.

Dumb philosopher is dumb.

Are the distinctions drawn by "real philosophers" discovered or invented? Is the very act of distinguishing between discovery and invention itself a fact or a mere convention?

That's moral relativism. Others can create a different thing to discover than you create, and there is in your own words "no mind-independent objective" by which to DISCOVER that they are mistaken.

Awwww! This is sooo cute! In an OP about facts he brings in morality and muddies the water between factual relativism to moral relativism.

Almost as if he understands that the central pursuit of Philosophy (Truth) is the very pursuit of moral objectivists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So are moral facts constructed by this process or discovered by it?

It is not that simple in my case with morality, there are a lot of nuances to it.

First, the usual,
my principle is all facts, knowledge, reality, truths and objectivity are conditioned or contingent upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

In this case, moral facts emerged and are realized within a FSR and perceived, known and described via a FSK which has near equivalence objectivity to that of the scientific FSRK.

What emerged, is realized, perceive, known and described is incorporated into the Moral FSRK as an ideal moral standard as a guide to facilitate moral progress within humanity.

In addition, since there is no mind-independent objective, what we have a continual improvement of the moral standard via the feedback of the FSK [t1] onto the FSR [t2] of a self-reference basis within a spiral [not a circle].

In the case, the moral standard as a guide whilst consistent over a long time could change with circumstances thus not absolute and fixed eternally.

There is no need for me to use the term 'construct' nor discover in this case.
It need to, I could include the above within Constructivism and there is no question of it being discovered within the philosophical context.

So you are both creating and discovering the same thing. And so is everybody else.

This is a strawman in your sense.

That's moral relativism. Others can create a different thing to discover than you create, and there is in your own words "no mind-independent objective" by which to DISCOVER that they are mistaken.

That is why real philosophers distinguish between discover and invent. Because it determines what is fact vs what is convention.

Strawman again.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion.
see the similarity here;
PH's "What is Fact" is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

What is objective is independent of a subject.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your strawman is build upon the illusory sense of what is fact and objectivity.

In my case;
What is fact and objectivity are conditioned upon a human-based FSRK of which the most credible is the scientific FSRK.
My moral principles are conditioned upon a human-based FSRK which are as credible as the scientific FSRK.
Therefore my version of morality-proper is factual and objective.

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.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Scientific Objectivity is not based on "a" sentient subject, it is objective because it is based on a collective-of-subjects, thus objectivity is intersubjectivity.

Get it?