What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. Any appeal to human nature to justify moral judgements as facts is fallacious, for two reasons.

1 There's no agreement - and certainly no intersubjective scientific consensus - as to what constitutes human nature. (Physiological facts, such as the need to breathe, are irrelevant here.)

2 Even if there were such a thing as human nature, that humans should should act in accordance with their nature is a matter of opinion, which is therefore subjective.

Just insisting that there are different kinds of facts, so that there can be moral facts, doesn't help your argument. You have to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. And just one example will do, to prove your case.

So to repeat: please propose what you think is a moral fact - a true factual assertion - which would therefore be false if things were different - and show why it's a fact. Hint: 'People should (be allowed to) breathe' is NOT a fact.

What is human nature is very obvious and can be justified from empirical evidence of human physical-make-ups, anatomy, systems and behaviors.

I have already argued re it is human nature - based on empirical evidences - ALL humans breathe, thus the moral fact, All human ought to breathe and leading to
'No human ought to prevent another from breathing' is a moral fact.
I have already provided all the proofs earlier and you seem to ignore them?

But your problem is you are stuck with one type of fact, i.e. that of Philosophical Realism which is unrealistic.
Btw, you are ignoring my criticism of this fundamental ground of yours.
You have to prove "your" facts are the only facts in existence in itself and absolutely, thus no other facts, e.g. moral facts are acceptable.
Btw, you are not a God to make that autocratic claim, are you?

Still missing the point. I'll repeat my #2 above:

Even if there were such a thing as human nature, that humans should should act in accordance with their nature is a matter of opinion, which is therefore subjective. Please answer these questions:

1 Why should humans breathe?
2 Why should humans live?
3 Why should humans act in accordance with human nature?

Short, clear answers would be useful.

And, no, given our understanding of 'fact' as 'true factual assertion of a feature of reality', yours is the burden of proving that there are moral facts.

It is SO obvious, it is a fact - if humans do not comply with 1, 2 and 3 above they will die, and they would have suffered terrible pains before they die. This is a fact that is self-evident and objective.
This fact is a "true factual assertion of a feature of reality" which is so evident.
You dispute this point?

There are many Framework of knowledge, where one of them is the Moral Framework.
The above "true factual assertion of a feature of reality" has to be incorporated into the Moral Framework as an objective [goal] as a GUIDE [the ideal] to ensure it is effective.

I say again, you are stuck and constipated with the Philosophical Realism sh:t and cannot realize the truth of reality.
You should not be dogmatic with Philosophical Realism and open up to the other more realistic philosophical anti-realism philosophy.

Hume started the problematic "is to ought" issue but I noted you have not understood Hume's total context in relation to the "is to ought" issue at all.

Another point is, you are also stuck with the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.[1]

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.

see objections here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... Objections

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Absolute objective reality is claimed by Philosophical Realism ...

"Absolute"? Who put that word in their mouths?

The only claim here is that subjectivism has to be "a subjective impression of something."
So I would ask, what is that "thing," of which subjective impressions" give us an impression?

1. Note emergence as I had argued in this thread;

Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

2. That "thing" which give the subject the impression is co-created by the subject in another perspective- because;

3. You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

4. There can be no such thing as a thing-in-itself [Ding an sich] or thing-by-itself [Kant].

5. Things are always realized as thing-by-ourselves+otherselves emerging with other things which are thing-by-ourselves+otherselves and so on.

Thus whatever is of reality [all there is] cannot be absolutely independent of subjects, i.e. all humans.
Reality is not dependent on subjects, but inevitably subjects are part and parcel of reality as with other things as in 5.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In your opinion is that ability binary. or absolute; or is that ability relative to the man's mental health, knowledge, civil liberty, and ability to reason?

It is empirically evident humans has the ability of discretion with his freewill in contrast to all other animals [non-humans].

The ability of discretion is relative to the above variables you mentioned above and many others. But this variation is not critical to the point to the discussion in this case.

What is critical is, it is the ability of discretion with freewill and self-consciousness that make humans different from animals and evolving with the faculty of morality - thus leading to the necessity of moral facts which are justified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning.

But some men are a lot more more stupid than other men. Some men are more stupid than some animals.In what way are all men different from all animals?

What exactly is this "discretion" and this "free will" ? One knows for a fact that animals show discretion when they make choices. One also knows for a fact that animals feel free when they are free.

I am referring to the general average to the best not the exceptions and extremes to the worst.

Genetically the highest animal, i.e. some primates are 98% similar to humans. Thus there will be similarities.
What I am referring to are the very distinct differences within the general average to the best of humans.

[Peter Holmes]

1 Why should humans breathe?
2 Why should humans live?
3 Why should humans act in accordance with human nature?

Short, clear answers would be useful.

And, no, given our understanding of 'fact' as 'true factual assertion of a feature of reality', yours is the burden of proving that there are moral facts.

It is SO obvious, it is a fact - if humans do not comply with 1, 2 and 3 above they will die, and they would have suffered terrible pains before they die. This is a fact that is self-evident and objective.
This fact is a "true factual assertion of a feature of reality" which is so evident.
You dispute this point?

No. Quiz. Please say which of the following is a fact - a true factual assertion - and which expresses an opinion. Think carefully.

1 In order to live, humans must breathe.
2 Humans ought to breathe.
3 Humans must live.
4 Some people eat animals.
5 Eating animals is morally wrong.
6 Some states execute some criminals.
7 Capital punishment is morally justifiable.

[Belinda]

It is empirically evident humans has the ability of discretion with his freewill in contrast to all other animals [non-humans].

The ability of discretion is relative to the above variables you mentioned above and many others. But this variation is not critical to the point to the discussion in this case.

What is critical is, it is the ability of discretion with freewill and self-consciousness that make humans different from animals and evolving with the faculty of morality - thus leading to the necessity of moral facts which are justified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning.

But some men are a lot more more stupid than other men. Some men are more stupid than some animals.In what way are all men different from all animals?

What exactly is this "discretion" and this "free will" ? One knows for a fact that animals show discretion when they make choices. One also knows for a fact that animals feel free when they are free.

I am referring to the general average to the best not the exceptions and extremes to the worst.

Genetically the highest animal, i.e. some primates are 98% similar to humans. Thus there will be similarities.
What I am referring to are the very distinct differences within the general average to the best of humans.

In that case what you call "discretion" and " free will" don't define men. You may as well define a man as a hairless primate, or as a bifurcated mammal. For good reason DNA is the defining attribute of choice not "discretion" or "free will".

It's generally believed men are social animals. Again sociability does not define men as there are other social species. Culture does not define the human as other mammal mothers teach their infants knowledge which is learned knowledge. Thus these traits you call "discretion" and "free will" are not binary but relate to individual men and even within the life experiences of an individual 'discretion' and 'free will' fluctuate same as other traits like blood temperature and sleep cycles.

To sum up, it is not a good idea to define men as 'higher' or better than other animals.The behavioural difference between humans and other animals is human cultures define individual humans' behaviours to an extent their cultures don't define other animals. Thus moralities are cultural not objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 Why should humans breathe?
2 Why should humans live?
3 Why should humans act in accordance with human nature?

Short, clear answers would be useful.

And, no, given our understanding of 'fact' as 'true factual assertion of a feature of reality', yours is the burden of proving that there are moral facts.

It is SO obvious, it is a fact - if humans do not comply with 1, 2 and 3 above they will die, and they would have suffered terrible pains before they die. This is a fact that is self-evident and objective.
This fact is a "true factual assertion of a feature of reality" which is so evident.
You dispute this point?

No. Quiz. Please say which of the following is a fact - a true factual assertion - and which expresses an opinion. Think carefully.

1 In order to live, humans must breathe - empirical fact
2 Humans ought to breathe. - empirical fact -moral fact per Moral Framework
3 Humans must live [till the inevitable] - empirical fact
4 Some people eat animals - empirical fact
5 Eating animals is morally wrong - empirical fact re Vegans* per Moral Framework
6 Some states execute some criminals - empirical fact - legal fact.
7 Capital punishment is morally justifiable - per Moral Framework.

Note my answers above.

5* It is a fact there are vegans who hold such beliefs.
It is the holding of such belief that is a fact, not the belief.

Re 7, if that is made into law, then that would be a legislature/legal fact.

Re 3 Humans ought to breathe. - empirical fact -moral fact per Moral Framework
Note 5 - Moral Fact is only confined to Vegans but this 3
is obviously universal to all humans.
It is thus a moral fact derived from a Moral Framework applicable to all humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But some men are a lot more more stupid than other men. Some men are more stupid than some animals.In what way are all men different from all animals?

What exactly is this "discretion" and this "free will" ? One knows for a fact that animals show discretion when they make choices. One also knows for a fact that animals feel free when they are free.

I am referring to the general average to the best not the exceptions and extremes to the worst.

Genetically the highest animal, i.e. some primates are 98% similar to humans. Thus there will be similarities.
What I am referring to are the very distinct differences within the general average to the best of humans.

In that case what you call "discretion" and " free will" don't define men. You may as well define a man as a hairless primate, or as a bifurcated mammal. For good reason DNA is the defining attribute of choice not "discretion" or "free will".

It's generally believed men are social animals. Again sociability does not define men as there are other social species. Culture does not define the human as other mammal mothers teach their infants knowledge which is learned knowledge. Thus these traits you call "discretion" and "free will" are not binary but relate to individual men and even within the life experiences of an individual 'discretion' and 'free will' fluctuate same as other traits like blood temperature and sleep cycles.

To sum up, it is not a good idea to define men as 'higher' or better than other animals.The behavioural difference between humans and other animals is human cultures define individual humans' behaviours to an extent their cultures don't define other animals. Thus moralities are cultural not objective.

Culture is too wide and loose definition to be used for this case.\
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

Note animals also has 'culture' which is significantly different from human culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_culture
There are also a lot similarities between human culture and animal culture.

Thus the difference between animals and humans in terms of culture is what are the features within humans that make their culture different from those of animals.
This falls back to degrees of freewill, discretion, genes, brain anatomy, etc.

Thus moralities are cultural not objective.

The above is too vague. Not sure where you are heading with your term 'objective'.

What I claimed is the moral facts justified from a specific Moral Framework is objective in relation that Moral Framework, i.e. they are objective as being independent of any individual's opinions and beliefs.

The objective moral facts are adopted as objective [goals] for the Moral Framework.

[Peter Holmes]

It is SO obvious, it is a fact - if humans do not comply with 1, 2 and 3 above they will die, and they would have suffered terrible pains before they die. This is a fact that is self-evident and objective.
This fact is a "true factual assertion of a feature of reality" which is so evident.
You dispute this point?

No. Quiz. Please say which of the following is a fact - a true factual assertion - and which expresses an opinion. Think carefully.

1 In order to live, humans must breathe - empirical fact
2 Humans ought to breathe. - empirical fact -moral fact per Moral Framework
3 Humans must live [till the inevitable] - empirical fact
4 Some people eat animals - empirical fact
5 Eating animals is morally wrong - empirical fact re Vegans* per Moral Framework
6 Some states execute some criminals - empirical fact - legal fact.
7 Capital punishment is morally justifiable - per Moral Framework.

Note my answers above.

5* It is a fact there are vegans who hold such beliefs.
It is the holding of such belief that is a fact, not the belief.

Re 7, if that is made into law, then that would be a legislature/legal fact.

Re 3 Humans ought to breathe. - empirical fact -moral fact per Moral Framework
Note 5 - Moral Fact is only confined to Vegans but this 3
is obviously universal to all humans.
It is thus a moral fact derived from a Moral Framework applicable to all humans.

So, given what you call a moral framework in which it's a given that humans ought to breathe, then it's a fact that humans ought to breathe.

And given a vegan moral framework in which eating animals is morally wrong, it's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong. But, strangely, the belief that eating animals is morally wrong is not a fact - the only fact being that vegans hold that belief.

And given the fact that humans live until they die, it's a fact that humans must/should/ought to live until they die.

And within a moral framework in which capital punishment is justifiable, it's a fact that capital punishment is morally justifiable.

Thanks, VA. With reasoning of this calibre, I just have to throw in the towel.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. Quiz. Please say which of the following is a fact - a true factual assertion - and which expresses an opinion. Think carefully.

1 In order to live, humans must breathe - empirical fact
2 Humans ought to breathe. - empirical fact -moral fact per Moral Framework
3 Humans must live [till the inevitable] - empirical fact
4 Some people eat animals - empirical fact
5 Eating animals is morally wrong - empirical fact re Vegans* per Moral Framework
6 Some states execute some criminals - empirical fact - legal fact.
7 Capital punishment is morally justifiable - per Moral Framework.

Note my answers above.

5* It is a fact there are vegans who hold such beliefs.
It is the holding of such belief that is a fact, not the belief.

Re 7, if that is made into law, then that would be a legislature/legal fact.

Re 3 Humans ought to breathe. - empirical fact -moral fact per Moral Framework
Note 5 - Moral Fact is only confined to Vegans but this 3
is obviously universal to all humans.
It is thus a moral fact derived from a Moral Framework applicable to all humans.

So, given what you call a moral framework in which it's a given that humans ought to breathe, then it's a fact that humans ought to breathe.

And given a vegan moral framework in which eating animals is morally wrong, it's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong. But, strangely, the belief that eating animals is morally wrong is not a fact - the only fact being that vegans hold that belief.

And given the fact that humans live until they die, it's a fact that humans must/should/ought to live until they die.

And within a moral framework in which capital punishment is justifiable, it's a fact that capital punishment is morally justifiable.

Thanks, VA. With reasoning of this calibre, I just have to throw in the towel.

You are subtly being rhetoric in the above.
You ignored that whatever is fact must be qualified as I had done and there is no thing as fact-in-itself which you insisted exists as real.

It is your discretion, where you bring sound arguments I am game for it.

[Peter Holmes]

Note my answers above.

5* It is a fact there are vegans who hold such beliefs.
It is the holding of such belief that is a fact, not the belief.

Re 7, if that is made into law, then that would be a legislature/legal fact.

Re 3 Humans ought to breathe. - empirical fact -moral fact per Moral Framework
Note 5 - Moral Fact is only confined to Vegans but this 3
is obviously universal to all humans.
It is thus a moral fact derived from a Moral Framework applicable to all humans.

So, given what you call a moral framework in which it's a given that humans ought to breathe, then it's a fact that humans ought to breathe.

And given a vegan moral framework in which eating animals is morally wrong, it's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong. But, strangely, the belief that eating animals is morally wrong is not a fact - the only fact being that vegans hold that belief.

And given the fact that humans live until they die, it's a fact that humans must/should/ought to live until they die.

And within a moral framework in which capital punishment is justifiable, it's a fact that capital punishment is morally justifiable.

Thanks, VA. With reasoning of this calibre, I just have to throw in the towel.

You are subtly being rhetoric in the above.
You ignored that whatever is fact must be qualified as I had done and there is no thing as fact-in-itself which you insisted exists as real.

It is your discretion, where you bring sound arguments I am game for it.

Well, you've thrown some abuse at me before now, but to say I'm subtly being rhetoric is about as rude as it gets. I've had enough of this discussion - until you say anything remotely sensible. Cheers.

[uwot]

Thanks to Veritas Aequitas for this survey of the book Mr Can has mentioned:

THE BLACKWELL COMPANION TO NATURAL THEOLOGY
Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland

Contents:
2 The Leibnizian cosmological argument
3 The kalam cosmological argument
4 The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe
5 The argument from consciousness
6 The argument from reason
7 The moral argument
8 The argument from evil
9 The argument from religious experience
10 The ontological argument
11 The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection
of Jesus of Nazareth

The first thing to note is that each chapter is an argument - there is no claim that the book will present any actual evidence. The problem with every one of those arguments is that there is at least one premise which is unsound. For example the Kalam cosmological argument, which the editor William Lane Craig presents as a syllogism with two out of two unsound premises:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Craig cannot prove the soundness of 1. In the first instance he simply claims it is self-evident. Whatever your views on that, it doesn't follow that it is therefore true. So he tries to ridicule the idea that it may not be by claiming that we should see things popping into existence with no apparent cause. Craig insists we do not see such events, therefore things must always have a cause. Critics point out that there are certain quantum phenomena that can be interpreted as being uncaused. Craig counters that, Bell's Theorem notwithstanding, no one knows what is really going on at the quantum level. That is true, but Craig makes the unjustifiable leap that because what he would like to be true can't be ruled out, it must therefore be the case.
As for the second premise, it is certainly true that the observable universe appears to have begun at the big bang; but we simply don't know what the conditions, if any, were.
As I said, all the other arguments are similarly flawed. It doesn't follow that they are all wrong, but whether you believe them is based on aesthetic and emotional decisions, rather than rational ones; and anyone who tells you otherwise can go fuck themselves.

[Immanuel Can]

... the book is a compilation of irrational thoughts driven by desperate psychology to cling to God as a crutch.

If that's what you think you see, then that's what you think you see. Is there more to say? Apparently not.

[Immanuel Can]

4. There can be no such thing as a thing-in-itself [Ding an sich] or thing-by-itself [Kant].

Kant did not say this. He said that we could not KNOW the thing-in-itself, which is a failure of epistemology not a lack of ontology. He did not say that the "thing" itself does not exist.

Thus whatever is of reality [all there is]...

...is objective. Whether you or I know it precisely is immaterial to that particular question. So I'll ask again: if "subjective knowledge" is all we have, then what is the "subjective knowledge" knowledge OF?

The answer cannot be "more subjective knowledge" for that implies there is, at bottom, no "thing" that makes "subjective knowledge" possible in the first place. It would mean there is absolutely no difference between realistic knowledge and total delusions without reference to any facts at all. It would make hard science as illusory as unicorn-ranching.

Are you prepared to swallow that?

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks to Veritas Aequitas for this survey of the book Mr Can has mentioned:

THE BLACKWELL COMPANION TO NATURAL THEOLOGY
Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland

Contents:
2 The Leibnizian cosmological argument
3 The kalam cosmological argument
4 The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe
5 The argument from consciousness
6 The argument from reason
7 The moral argument
8 The argument from evil
9 The argument from religious experience
10 The ontological argument
11 The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection
of Jesus of Nazareth

The first thing to note is that each chapter is an argument - there is no claim that the book will present any actual evidence. The problem with every one of those arguments is that there is at least one premise which is unsound. For example the Kalam cosmological argument, which the editor William Lane Craig presents as a syllogism with two out of two unsound premises:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Craig cannot prove the soundness of 1. In the first instance he simply claims it is self-evident. Whatever your views on that, it doesn't follow that it is therefore true. So he tries to ridicule the idea that it may not be by claiming that we should see things popping into existence with no apparent cause. Craig insists we do not see such events, therefore things must always have a cause. Critics point out that there are certain quantum phenomena that can be interpreted as being uncaused. Craig counters that, Bell's Theorem notwithstanding, no one knows what is really going on at the quantum level. That is true, but Craig makes the unjustifiable leap that because what he would like to be true can't be ruled out, it must therefore be the case.
As for the second premise, it is certainly true that the observable universe appears to have begun at the big bang; but we simply don't know what the conditions, if any, were.
As I said, all the other arguments are similarly flawed. It doesn't follow that they are all wrong, but whether you believe them is based on aesthetic and emotional decisions, rather than rational ones; and anyone who tells you otherwise can go fuck themselves.

All agreed. I guess outsourcing your reasoning to an apologist is like outsourcing your moral conscience to a god - similar psycho-crutchery going on.

I wanted IC to cite one piece of evidence or favourite argument. And Craig - pathetic as he is - has become a go-to excuse for not doing the hard work yourself. But you're right: no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and unsound abductive arguments. For information - Reasonable Faith Debunked is an online group dedicated to exposing Craig's and others' apologetics.

Unsurprisingly though, Craig has said that, if all of his ropey and repeatedly refuted arguments turn out to be rubbish (?!), he'll still believe, because he has the inner witness of the holy proof spirit. Heads I win, tails I win.

[Veritas Aequitas]

4. There can be no such thing as a thing-in-itself [Ding an sich] or thing-by-itself [Kant].

Kant did not say this. He said that we could not KNOW the thing-in-itself, which is a failure of epistemology not a lack of ontology. He did not say that the "thing" itself does not exist.

Having put in the extraordinary effort [relative to myself] I consider myself a reasonable expert on Kant.

Where did Kant said "we could not KNOW the thing-in-itself but it exists as real?"

We have gone through this many times.

Kant stated the Noumenon aka Thing-in-itself exists merely as merely a limiting concept, only of negative employment and it cannot affirm any positive [thing] beyond the field of sensibility.;

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
B311

The noumenon represent one perspective of the thing in itself, it is merely a limiting concept, only of negative employment and it cannot affirm any positive beyond the field of sensibility.

When the noumenon is taken to the ultimate, it is basically the thing-in-itself, i.e. an idea which Kant demonstrated below, is an illusion.

The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such

Ideas

by a necessary Syllogism. 1

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [ideas - thing-in-itself] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. 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.
B397

Read the above carefully and if in doubt read Kant's Critique of Reason and show me where Kant is wrong if you think so.

Thus whatever is of reality [all there is]...

...is objective. Whether you or I know it precisely is immaterial to that particular question. So I'll ask again: if "subjective knowledge" is all we have, then what is the "subjective knowledge" knowledge OF?

The answer cannot be "more subjective knowledge" for that implies there is, at bottom, no "thing" that makes "subjective knowledge" possible in the first place. It would mean there is absolutely no difference between realistic knowledge and total delusions without reference to any facts at all. It would make hard science as illusory as unicorn-ranching.

Are you prepared to swallow that?

What??

I have already answer that in the previous post;
viewtopic.php?p=454447#p454447

The subjective [intertwined, intersubjective] is knowledge OF the emergence of things CO-CREATED [emergence] by the subject and subjects collectively.
In one perspective, this is like a subject[s] having knowledge of his own thoughts which he created himself.
If a group of people created a motor vehicle, thereafter they have knowledge of the motor vehicle they co-created in the first place.

The inter-subjects co-creation of reality [all there is] is a more subtle perspective which is not easy but nevertheless that is the reality of it.
It is not exactly "creation" per se but 'spontaneous emergence' of reality.

I'll repeat it again [don't ignore it again];

• 1. Note emergence as I had argued in this thread;
  
  Reality is an Emergence
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671
  
  2. That "thing" which give the subject the impression is co-created by the subject in another perspective- because;
  
  3. You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272
  
  4. There can be no such thing as a thing-in-itself [Ding an sich] or thing-by-itself [Kant].
  
  5. Things are always realized as thing-by-ourselves+otherselves emerging with other things which are thing-by-ourselves+otherselves and so on.
  
  Thus whatever is of reality [all there is] cannot be absolutely independent of subjects, i.e. all humans.
  Reality is not dependent on subjects, but inevitably subjects are part and parcel of reality as with other things as in 5.