Why the FSRK Basis of Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

We have a dilemma [see below] with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.

First there is no way humans can ever know what reality is by itself, i.e. a real thing-in-itself [if there is such a thing] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions.
You deny this?
Does anyone have any way to know or prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception?

If one cannot show any way nor prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception, then one are merely speculating which possibly could be a falsehood or illusion.
I raised a thread, re, the nearest 'real' star one see in the night sky based on its light having to travel millions of light year to reach oneself, is likely have exploded and non-existing in real time now.
Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154
The point is all humans has an inherent evolutionary default [instinct] to make such speculations necessarily to facilitate survival and various reasons.
The problem arise within philosophy when philosophical realists adopt the mind-independent reality as an ideology, i.e. my way or the highway.

On one hand, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the subjects' brain and mind.
Yes, via common sense, perception is known to be independent of the-perceived [the thing]
BUT on the other hand,
with more refined thinking, there is no thing that exist in itself [the-perceived] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions; there is no way anyone can prove it realistically.

We have a dilemma.
1. The thing [or reality] by-itself or in-itself that is absolutely independent of any human interactions is like a square-circle i.e. an impossibility to be real. It would be more effective to give up this option of establishing reality where it matters.

2. Thus, the most realistic option is for us to work from the basis of what we have on our "hands", i.e. perceptions, appearances, experiences and observations, and from there dig deeper into their root sources within human nature to understand their relation to reality.
That is where Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution.
This is a complex task because we have a 13.7-billion-years-history that is conditioned upon human nature to work with.

It is from the preferred mode 2 where the theme of intersubjectivity [FSRK basis] arise.
As such, reality is relative and must be qualified to the FSRK at the time or conditions.
What is realized as reality is because so and so FSRK said so, of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
The point is before we perceive, know and describe a thing, there are prior processes within human nature [intersubjectively] that enable the emergence and realization of reality.
One cannot ignore these processes. see next post.

Why the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge? FSK
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

What is a Framework and System of Emergence and Realization of Reality? FSR
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.

Then demonstrate that me thinking my bathroom is still there when I go into the kitchen and so on with the kind of map of the realist world reduces my well-being.

I raised a thread, re, the nearest 'real' star one see in the night sky based on its light having to travel millions of light year to reach oneself, is likely have exploded and non-existing in real time now.
Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154

You just used a realist analysis. You are saying that actually instead of a star being there now - where we can't see, given how long light takes to get here - there would be debris/possible black hole, etc. You have a negative realist assertion - actually there where the star was we have what space is like after a star goes nova. That's realism.

And of course realists can understand in their models that given long distances changes will have happened.

And what loss in well-being do we have if we have a realist model of distant stars?

The point is all humans has an inherent evolutionary default [instinct] to make such speculations necessarily to facilitate survival and various reasons.

So, not being realist definitely damages well-being.

And never an answer as to why a realist model is NECESSARY or CRITICAL for survival if it is wrong. Examples given have been about emotional help given by certain false models. But why would a false model work better on a PRACTICAL level than a true model?

The problem arise within philosophy when philosophical realists adopt the mind-independent reality as an ideology, i.e. my way or the highway.

But that's been your position. Antirealism prevents all the harm of realism. Period. Not even the agnosticism of a Von Frassen - who does not assert that the noumena or unobservables are not real, he just thinks we should be cautious about them.

On one hand, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the subjects' brain and mind.
Yes, via common sense, perception is known to be independent of the-perceived [the thing]
BUT on the other hand,
with more refined thinking, there is no thing that exist in itself [the-perceived] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions; there is no way anyone can prove it realistically.

But you have actually given evidence in favor of that model: The realist model is CRITICAL/NECESSARY for the survival of organisms, including us. The antirealist model would not have worked. We had to have this other model. It works better in nearly every situation and every human on earth communicates via the realist model in nearly every situation. The car keys are on the table in the kitchen, we say, even when no one is there.

If the antirealist model would not have led to survival, then that is evidence against it.

We have a dilemma.
1. The thing [or reality] by-itself or in-itself that is absolutely independent of any human interactions is like a square-circle i.e. an impossibility to be real.

You cannot demonstrate that and you certainly haven't. You have only managed to argue that we can't know it's there. You conflate these two arguments.

It is from the preferred mode 2 where the theme of intersubjectivity [FSRK basis] arise.
As such, reality is relative and must be qualified to the FSRK at the time or conditions.

Or knowledge is intersubjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.

Then demonstrate that me thinking my bathroom is still there when I go into the kitchen and so on with the kind of map of the realist world reduces my well-being.

You are just shooting from the hips without the whole in context.

I wrote:
The point is all humans has an inherent evolutionary default [instinct] to make such speculations necessarily to facilitate survival and various reasons.

As such you still need to think that you bathroom is still there when I go into the kitchen but the problem arise when you adopt this as an ideology philosophically.

I raised a thread, re, the nearest 'real' star one see in the night sky based on its light having to travel millions of light year to reach oneself, is likely have exploded and non-existing in real time now.
Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154

You just used a realist analysis. You are saying that actually instead of a star being there now - where we can't see, given how long light takes to get here - there would be debris/possible black hole, etc. You have a negative realist assertion - actually there where the star was we have what space is like after a star goes nova. That's realism.

And of course realists can understand in their models that given long distances changes will have happened.

And what loss in well-being do we have if we have a realist model of distant stars?

Strawman.
What I am asserting is, if one using the p-realist thinking, they are likely to infer there is a really star-in-itself up there, where there is a possibility it could be an illusion.
Therefore it is illusory to claim there is a thing-in-itself whether it is many light years way or nano-mm away.

As for p-realism and well being, that is related the evils of theism, moral relativism and moral skepticism.

The point is all humans has an inherent evolutionary default [instinct] to make such speculations necessarily to facilitate survival and various reasons.

So, not being realist definitely damages well-being.

And never an answer as to why a realist model is NECESSARY or CRITICAL for survival if it is wrong. Examples given have been about emotional help given by certain false models. But why would a false model work better on a PRACTICAL level than a true model?

As for p-realism and well being, that is related the evils of theism, moral relativism and moral skepticism.

The problem arise within philosophy when philosophical realists adopt the mind-independent reality as an ideology, i.e. my way or the highway.

But that's been your position. Antirealism prevents all the harm of realism. Period. Not even the agnosticism of a Von Frassen - who does not assert that the noumena or unobservables are not real, he just thinks we should be cautious about them.

As for ideological p-realism and well being, that is related the evils of theism, moral relativism and moral skepticism.

On one hand, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the subjects' brain and mind.
Yes, via common sense, perception is known to be independent of the-perceived [the thing]
BUT on the other hand,
with more refined thinking, there is no thing that exist in itself [the-perceived] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions; there is no way anyone can prove it realistically.

But you have actually given evidence in favor of that model: The realist model is CRITICAL/NECESSARY for the survival of organisms, including us. The antirealist model would not have worked. We had to have this other model. It works better in nearly every situation and every human on earth communicates via the realist model in nearly every situation. The car keys are on the table in the kitchen, we say, even when no one is there.

If the antirealist model would not have led to survival, then that is evidence against it.

Note I wrote, "with more refined thinking" realism may be effective at one level of survival, but not effective at a more refined level and facing greater threats to humanity in the future, as I mentioned where it related to the evil of theism and the hindrance of moral development.

We have a dilemma.
1. The thing [or reality] by-itself or in-itself that is absolutely independent of any human interactions is like a square-circle i.e. an impossibility to be real.

You cannot demonstrate that and you certainly haven't. You have only managed to argue that we can't know it's there. You conflate these two arguments.

I am relying on Kant who argued ultimately what is supposed to be unknowable cannot have objective reality and is an illusion.
You need to master Kant to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's argument.

It is from the preferred mode 2 where the theme of intersubjectivity [FSRK basis] arise.
As such, reality is relative and must be qualified to the FSRK at the time or conditions.

Or knowledge is intersubjective.

The emergence & realization of reality and knowledge of it is intersubjective.

[Sculptor]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.


Why the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.

Can you tell me why an "R" has appeared in your abreviation?

[FlashDangerpants]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'

No we don't. Consider the following from Hume.

Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? ... I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.

Most fortunately it happens, that since Reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. And when, after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

Now follow his example, get your shit together, look around yourself. All that stuff you are looking at, that is what reality is, that's what the concept is for. Anything you think might be more real than that is something beyond reality.

End this foolish outdated shit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.


Why the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.

Can you tell me why an "R" has appeared in your abreviation?

R = Realization of reality a process [FSR] before we can have knowledge via the FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'

No we don't. Consider the following from Hume.

Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? ... I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.

Most fortunately it happens, that since Reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. And when, after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

Now follow his example, get your shit together, look around yourself. All that stuff you are looking at, that is what reality is, that's what the concept is for. Anything you think might be more real than that is something beyond reality.

End this foolish outdated shit.

I am not too sure of your point and I can't see how the quote from Hume is relevant to the OP.
It is likely that Hume could be a philosophical realist, if so, then by default he is caught within the above dilemma.

FDP: "All that stuff you are looking at, that is what reality is, that's what the concept is for."
But you are claiming on the other hand that 'what is fact' is independent of one's opinion, beliefs and judgment which is based on what one is looking at?

Hume stated, "that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther" on a personal basis which is the same as the FSRK basis [option 2]; however the FSRK basis is more objective than Hume's personal basis.

Without an objective basis to manage those "confounding questions" as Kant warned they will appear every now to haunt even people like Hume as Kant warned;

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

[Sculptor]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'; so we have to choose the more realistic option at the right time and conditions to optimize the well-being of individual[s] and humanity.


Why the FSR-FSK sense of reality is preferred is because it is a more realistic option within an inherent dilemma faced by humans.

Can you tell me why an "R" has appeared in your abreviation?

R = Realization of reality a process [FSR] before we can have knowledge via the FSK.

[FlashDangerpants]

We have a dilemma with 'what is reality'

No we don't. Consider the following from Hume.

Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? ... I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.

Most fortunately it happens, that since Reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. And when, after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

Now follow his example, get your shit together, look around yourself. All that stuff you are looking at, that is what reality is, that's what the concept is for. Anything you think might be more real than that is something beyond reality.

End this foolish outdated shit.

I am not too sure of your point and I can't see how the quote from Hume is relevant to the OP.
It is likely that Hume could be a philosophical realist, if so, then by default he is caught within the above dilemma.

The point is that if you get too caught up in this world-doubt bullshit, you lose sight of basic reality - the thing that you are part of not a remote observer of. This has happened to you.

FDP: "All that stuff you are looking at, that is what reality is, that's what the concept is for."
But you are claiming on the other hand that 'what is fact' is independent of one's opinion, beliefs and judgment which is based on what one is looking at?

I am not making a distinction between perception and reality because I am not confounded by the notion that mind is a mirror of some distant reality. I am part of reality, you should try to be as well, if you are actually real enough. You don't pick up on subtext very well, so FYI I made a dig at your clumsy misunderstanding of Rorty there.

Hume stated, "that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther" on a personal basis which is the same as the FSRK basis [option 2]; however the FSRK basis is more objective than Hume's personal basis.

Without an objective basis to manage those "confounding questions" as Kant warned they will appear every now to haunt even people like Hume as Kant warned;

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

Yeah well, with the way you use the word "objective" there is no point bothering with that. What Hume (and Rorty, and Wittgenstein) tell you about is a reality, not an "objective reality", just reality, and it is the thing you are supposed to be within and contributing to, not observing from an impossible external position behind your eyes.



All of this conversation is wasted on you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No we don't. Consider the following from Hume.



Now follow his example, get your shit together, look around yourself. All that stuff you are looking at, that is what reality is, that's what the concept is for. Anything you think might be more real than that is something beyond reality.

End this foolish outdated shit.

I am not too sure of your point and I can't see how the quote from Hume is relevant to the OP.
It is likely that Hume could be a philosophical realist, if so, then by default he is caught within the above dilemma.

The point is that if you get too caught up in this world-doubt bullshit, you lose sight of basic reality - the thing that you are part of not a remote observer of. This has happened to you.

You are not even aware you are the confused one.

Note I stated,
Whatever is reality [basic, fundamental], existence, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is imperatively contingent upon an embodied, human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
This is why I used the term embodied and human-based since humans are intricately part and parcel of.

FDP: "All that stuff you are looking at, that is what reality is, that's what the concept is for."
But you are claiming on the other hand that 'what is fact' is independent of one's opinion, beliefs and judgment which is based on what one is looking at?

I am not making a distinction between perception and reality because I am not confounded by the notion that mind is a mirror of some distant reality. I am part of reality, you should try to be as well, if you are actually real enough. You don't pick up on subtext very well, so FYI I made a dig at your clumsy misunderstanding of Rorty there.

Note my point above re "embodied and human-based since humans are intricately part and parcel of."

But you are contradicting yourself when you claim as Peter does, i.e.,
'what is fact', is a feature of reality [that is the case, just is, states of affairs] is absolutely independent of things and reality, i.e. independent of the subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment.
The point is yes, at one level human opinions, beliefs and judgments are independent of reality at one level, but since humans are part and parcel of reality, ultimately humans cannot be absolutely independent of things and reality.
This is to the extent of a philosophical realist's [Peter had expressed that a million times, but I have not read you saying that*] claim the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even if there are no more humans [extinct].
* I imply based on what you post, your position is the same as Peter's.

How do you explain the above contradictions?

Hume stated, "that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther" on a personal basis which is the same as the FSRK basis [option 2]; however the FSRK basis is more objective than Hume's personal basis.

Without an objective basis to manage those "confounding questions" as Kant warned they will appear every now to haunt even people like Hume as Kant warned;

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

Yeah well, with the way you use the word "objective" there is no point bothering with that. What Hume (and Rorty, and Wittgenstein) tell you about is a reality, not an "objective reality", just reality, and it is the thing you are supposed to be within and contributing to, not observing from an impossible external position behind your eyes.

All of this conversation is wasted on you.

Again I have argued seriously,

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

Who are you to brush off my sense of objectivity as argued above with leverage on scientific objective as my grounds.
On the other hand, your sense of objectivity is illusory.

You have not given any arguments, texts and references to why you think your sense of objective should prevail.

What Hume (and Rorty, and Wittgenstein) tell you about is a reality, not an "objective reality", just reality, and it is the thing you are supposed to be within and contributing to, not observing from an impossible external position behind your eyes.

On the above issue, Hume is contentious. Do you understand the issue of contentions with what is reality?
I understand and agree with Rorty's denial of no-mind-independent objective reality.
Rorty ground reality on use. But for use to be effective, he had to rely in science which has to be FSRK-ed science, not a mind-independent driven science like that of Atla and other p-realists.

On Wittgenstein, it only the very-late W that he made some sense with a FSRK-ed objective reality.

The very-late W and Rorty's version of human-interactive reality is very superficial.

I have argued Kant provided very sold arguments of an objective reality of which humans are intricately part and parcel of with the Copernican Revolution.

But if you claim as with Peter, 'what is fact' is a feature of reality which is the case and is absolutely independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgments, then you are in trouble.

You "seem" to sound very arrogant and very condescending without justifications plus you are ignorant you are ignorant of certain subtle nuances to the issues.
Prove to me if otherwise [without triggering my 'reptilian brain'].

[FlashDangerpants]

I am not too sure of your point and I can't see how the quote from Hume is relevant to the OP.
It is likely that Hume could be a philosophical realist, if so, then by default he is caught within the above dilemma.

The point is that if you get too caught up in this world-doubt bullshit, you lose sight of basic reality - the thing that you are part of not a remote observer of. This has happened to you.

You are not even aware you are the confused one.

Note I stated,
Whatever is reality [basic, fundamental], existence, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is imperatively contingent upon an embodied, human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
This is why I used the term embodied and human-based since humans are intricately part and parcel of.

And I don't care because that is all junk. Reality is this, it is what is all around you, it is what you are a part of all the time. You fool yourself that you are removed from it becasuse you can't see it all at once, but that is a trick you play on yourself by overinterpretation of word games and a faulty view of the mind as representation of nature.

[Iwannaplato]

Note I stated,
Whatever is reality [basic, fundamental], existence, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is imperatively contingent upon an embodied, human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

This sentence, which I think you use regularly, could be made more clear, and/or may have some category problems in it.

1) Whatever reality is or whatever is real might be clearer. In any case, they are more like standard English usage.
2) Facts, truth and knowledge, tend to refer to information/conclusions about reality. (fact, unfortunately, can be used in a couple of ways)
3) existence, reality tend to refer to things not information about things. Or everything. And again...whatever exists is more standard.
4) objectivity, to me, is an evaluation/conclusion about someone's or a group's approach to determining things.

So to me we have these three types of nouns, covering three different areas.

[Atla]

Rorty ground reality on use. But for use to be effective, he had to rely in science which has to be FSRK-ed science, not a mind-independent driven science like that of Atla and other p-realists.

Too bad there is only one kind of science on the planet. Maybe you're talking about a parallel dimension where science depends on your FSRK.