Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In

[Skepdick]

The argument goes like this..
There is this thing
why, er becuase magic, er because god, er because quantum mechanics, because so other thing not understood.
The funniest one is .. because FSK, or what was it FSR??

it is not necessary to make arguments to be alive, but it's necessary to be alive to make arguments.

So why do you insist on arguments?

errr because bullshit, er because reasons, err because I don't know why.

The funniest one is because Philosophy.

[Belinda]

Note my response to Seeds above.
viewtopic.php?p=483622#p483622

From the above, it is demonstrated and justified we are the co-creators of the reality we are part and parcel of.
As such whatever is fact, we are the co-creators of those facts.
There are moral facts, therefore we are the co-creators of the moral facts.

The above are mere assertions of moral facts.
What is needed to is to verify and justify the moral facts empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a moral framework and system.



Whatever is of a co-created reality as asserted, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a framework and system of reality[FSR].

I have verified and justified empirically and philosophically moral reality as real within a moral framework and system of reality[FSR]


1. First QM [reality is interdependent with humans as co-creators] debunked your idea of 'what is fact' [i.e. state-of-affair, feature of reality] which at the ultimate level is independent of human conditions.

2. As such you don't have an exclusive claim to your linguistic based what-is-fact [which is a bastardized linguistic fact not directly interactive with reality].
Thus my verifiable and justifiable moral facts do exist within a moral framework and system that deals with morality that confirms,
moral facts are co-created by humans.

3. What is objectivity is dependent on the credibility of features of the Framework and System, i.e. verifiability, testing, repeatability, falsifiability, consistency, etc. to its truth and factual claims.
I have stated the scientific FSR is the standard-bearer of the highest objectivity.
My moral framework and system is similar in quality to the scientific FSR, thus will have similar objectivity.

4. Therefore QM in 1 via 2 and 3 support moral realism and moral objectivity.

So, as I thought, this little excursion through quantum mechanics makes absolutely no difference to your argument. The facts that we supposedly co-create have to be 'verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real' - though this reality is one we have supposedly co-created.

Okay, how can we empirically test and falsify the assertion 'killing people is morally wrong' - without appealing to another moral assertion?

Your claim - 'we co-create all facts, therefore there are moral facts' - doesn't follow. Do you really not understand why it doesn't follow?

And, btw, you seem not to understand the problems with the whole idea of co-creation. Suckered again by a sparkly-looking notion.

The argument goes like this..
There is this thing
why, er becuase magic, er because god, er because quantum mechanics, because so other thing not understood.
As if the mere mention of something beyond reason and understanding would convince anyone.
The funniest one is .. because FSK, or what was it FSR??

Percepts and concepts are deceptive. What do you make of these famous pics of optical illusions? What do you make of concepts and percepts of the sun dancing at Fatima?

[Sculptor]

So, as I thought, this little excursion through quantum mechanics makes absolutely no difference to your argument. The facts that we supposedly co-create have to be 'verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real' - though this reality is one we have supposedly co-created.

Okay, how can we empirically test and falsify the assertion 'killing people is morally wrong' - without appealing to another moral assertion?

Your claim - 'we co-create all facts, therefore there are moral facts' - doesn't follow. Do you really not understand why it doesn't follow?

And, btw, you seem not to understand the problems with the whole idea of co-creation. Suckered again by a sparkly-looking notion.

The argument goes like this..
There is this thing
why, er becuase magic, er because god, er because quantum mechanics, because so other thing not understood.
As if the mere mention of something beyond reason and understanding would convince anyone.
The funniest one is .. because FSK, or what was it FSR??

Percepts and concepts are deceptive. What do you make of these famous pics of optical illusions? What do you make of concepts and percepts of the sun dancing at Fatima?

What is your point?
I think you are making mine.

[Belinda]

The argument goes like this..
There is this thing
why, er becuase magic, er because god, er because quantum mechanics, because so other thing not understood.
As if the mere mention of something beyond reason and understanding would convince anyone.
The funniest one is .. because FSK, or what was it FSR??

Percepts and concepts are deceptive. What do you make of these famous pics of optical illusions? What do you make of concepts and percepts of the sun dancing at Fatima?

What is your point?
I think you are making mine.

My point is if there be absolute reality, our percepts (optical illusions)and our concepts(miracle at Fatima)are not media that allow access to it. If we are demonstrably bamboozled in specific areas, then we are bamboozlable i.e. we cannot trust what to the naive looks like reality.

[Sculptor]

Percepts and concepts are deceptive. What do you make of these famous pics of optical illusions? What do you make of concepts and percepts of the sun dancing at Fatima?

What is your point?
I think you are making mine.

My point is if there be absolute reality, our percepts (optical illusions)and our concepts(miracle at Fatima)are not media that allow access to it. If we are demonstrably bamboozled in specific areas, then we are bamboozlable i.e. we cannot trust what to the naive looks like reality.

I'm not going to allow you to insult my intelligence with reference to Fatima.
Where do you think the illusion exists? out there in reality, or is it some factor of a failure of perception?
You may give examples.

[Eodnhoj7]

Here is an interesting Video that support the point,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In and the reality they talk about.
In a way, humans are also the co-creator of moral reality they talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_4nYgrDJvc

Professor Jim Al-Khalili traces the story of arguably the most important, accurate and yet perplexing scientific theory ever - quantum physics.

The story starts at the beginning of the 20th century with scientists trying to better understand how light bulbs work. This simple question led them deep into the hidden workings of matter, into the sub-atomic building blocks of the world around us. Here they discovered phenomena unlike any encountered before - a realm where things can be in many places at once, where chance and probability call the shots and where reality appears to only truly exist when we observe it.

Albert Einstein hated the idea that nature, at its most fundamental level, is governed by chance. Jim reveals how, in the 1930s, Einstein thought he had found a fatal flaw in quantum physics, because it implies that sub-atomic particles can communicate faster than light in defiance of the theory of relativity.

For 30 years, his ideas were ignored. Then, in the 1960s, a brilliant scientist from Northern Ireland called John Bell showed there was a way to test if Einstein was right and quantum mechanics was actually mistaken. In a laboratory in Oxford, Jim repeats this critical experiment. Does reality really exist or do we conjure it into existence by the act of observation?

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

The above video also exposed Peter Holmes' idea of 'what is fact', i.e. there are objective facts as real features of reality independent of the human conditions.
There are no fact-in-itself.
As I had asserted what-is-fact is conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality which existence is dependent on the convergence of human minds.

As such there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

The video is worth viewing and it will give one a sense of what reality really is.

According to you

1. There is no thing in itself.
2. Man as measurer is a thing in itself.
3. A creator exists as beyond man.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 If we co-create the reality we are in, who or what is the co-creator of that reality?

2 We are part of the reality we are in. So if we co-reate that reality, then we co-create our selves, including our perception and understanding of that reality. So who or what is the 'we' doing the co-creating? Just another co-creation?

3 If we co-create what we call facts, it doesn't follow that we co-create moral facts. For example, if we co-create what we call the fact that water is H2O, it doesn't follow that the moral wrongness of killing humans is the same kind of co-created fact.

Note my response to Seeds above.
viewtopic.php?p=483622#p483622

From the above, it is demonstrated and justified we are the co-creators of the reality we are part and parcel of.
As such whatever is fact, we are the co-creators of those facts.
There are moral facts, therefore we are the co-creators of the moral facts.

The above are mere assertions of moral facts.
What is needed to is to verify and justify the moral facts empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a moral framework and system.

4 From 'humans co-create reality', it doesn't follow that 'therefore there is a moral reality'.

Whatever is of a co-created reality as asserted, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a framework and system of reality[FSR].

I have verified and justified empirically and philosophically moral reality as real within a moral framework and system of reality[FSR]

5 This appeal to quantum mechanics is a massive category error, and anyway does nothing to support moral objectivism.

1. First QM [reality is interdependent with humans as co-creators] debunked your idea of 'what is fact' [i.e. state-of-affair, feature of reality] which at the ultimate level is independent of human conditions.

2. As such you don't have an exclusive claim to your linguistic based what-is-fact [which is a bastardized linguistic fact not directly interactive with reality].
Thus my verifiable and justifiable moral facts do exist within a moral framework and system that deals with morality that confirms,
moral facts are co-created by humans.

3. What is objectivity is dependent on the credibility of features of the Framework and System, i.e. verifiability, testing, repeatability, falsifiability, consistency, etc. to its truth and factual claims.
I have stated the scientific FSR is the standard-bearer of the highest objectivity.
My moral framework and system is similar in quality to the scientific FSR, thus will have similar objectivity.

4. Therefore QM in 1 via 2 and 3 support moral realism and moral objectivity.

So, as I thought, this little excursion through quantum mechanics makes absolutely no difference to your argument. The facts that we supposedly co-create have to be 'verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real' - though this reality is one we have supposedly co-created.

There are tons of things that humans did and co-created from the simple to complex that they are not aware of or if claimed are disputed by the majority and others.
Humans also has the proclivities to make all sorts of claims as real which can be true or false.
For example, if A claimed he Y exists or invented X and they are real but no one believed him, thus he has to verify and justify that it is real within the specific FSR, the best being the scientific FSR.
What is the problem with that.

Note you are always one and many steps behind on what I proposed.

Okay, how can we empirically test and falsify the assertion 'killing people is morally wrong' - without appealing to another moral assertion?

I have already told you, any contradiction or deviation from the standard/norm is 'wrong' [false or a negative from the norm].
If 'no human ought to kill humans' is a moral standard from a moral framework and system, then any killing of human[s] is morally wrong in contrast to the moral standard.

Your claim - 'we co-create all facts, therefore there are moral facts' - doesn't follow. Do you really not understand why it doesn't follow?

It is you who do not understand to apply logic here.
I had stated before you have missed out an imperative minor premise.
1. Major Premise: We co-create all facts of reality [all there is].
2.Minor Premise: Facts related to morality within a moral systems are moral facts*.
3.Conclusion: Therefore all facts comprised of moral facts [besides of type of fact].

* Note:
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

And, btw, you seem not to understand the problems with the whole idea of co-creation. Suckered again by a sparkly-looking notion.

You need to understand you are very ignorant of many things due to your dogmatism to merely the linguistic perspective thus your bias and bigotry.

Other than the more complex explanation [from Kant, and others], I have demonstrated the simple explanation that all humans are co-creators of the reality they talked about. If you dispute where is your counter argument.

The point is QM encompass the very basic and foundation of reality [all-there-is], thus is involved in all facts [including moral facts] of reality.

The basic principles of QM is complementariness as reflected in the Yin-Yang philosophy which was expounded 1000s of years before QM.

[Veritas Aequitas]

According to you

1. There is no thing in itself.
2. Man as measurer is a thing in itself.
3. A creator exists as beyond man.

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This only makes any sense if you define reality as some shit in your own perception.
If you want to alter real reality, you can only do that by hard work, with your hands.

You can't just simply think yourself into a new reality.
If that were the case we'd all be lying on a cloud cusion, having our ever whim fulfilled by maidens in provocative sexy lingerie, begging us to let them massage you, whist gentle winds brought you your favorite music.
oooh. Sorry got carried away there a bit..
urumph!

No. We cannot simply create our own reality. There's us and there's the world. How we perceive it is not the same as what it is. But we try.

You are just desperate, thus jumping to hasty conclusion without understanding the principles. philosophy and knowledge I presented.

I never asserted "one can simply think oneself into a new reality."
The thinking is a reality, but what is thought [idea or image] cannot be reality itself.
E.g. the act of 'thinking' of a God is real, but the God-that-is-thought is impossible to be real.

Thus whatever your thoughts above are, they are not reality nor real, they are just your thoughts/ideas which are false anyway. In your case, what you think as really-real is confined to your brain thus actually an illusion. [note that's empirical idealism].

Whatever is thought and if claimed to represent reality, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a specific FSR [or FSK]: the scientific FSR is the standard bearer of what is reality.

Humans as co-creators meant literally they are the co-creators of reality as it is, not by thinking but by their existence and actions [intended, unintended, conscious or subconsciously].

I demonstrated above, at time t1 there is 'all-there-is' say, reality-1.
Remember you are imperatively [unavoidable] part and parcel of reality - all-there-is.
The moment you farted, at t2, your farting has already change 'all-there-is' to be realty-2, which will subsequent cause different realities which could be a hurricane on the other side of the world.

Even when you are start to 'think' at t2, there is a new reality, reality-2 which is changed from the older one at t1, i.e. with a different neural state from the previous. Your act of thinking created a new reality, but what-you-thought are merely ideas and images which are not reality itself.

You are incapable of refine philosophy and thinking but only think of the seeing the trees, Sun, stars and the obvious objects.
Btw, if you plant trees or do whatever, you are in fact creating a new reality from "all-there-is without your trees" to new reality of "all-there-is with your trees".

Suggest you get rid of your dogmatism and bigotry, it has something to do with the psychology straight-jacket within you which was very necessary for [adapted by] our barbaric ancestors.

[Sculptor]

This only makes any sense if you define reality as some shit in your own perception.
If you want to alter real reality, you can only do that by hard work, with your hands.

You can't just simply think yourself into a new reality.
If that were the case we'd all be lying on a cloud cusion, having our ever whim fulfilled by maidens in provocative sexy lingerie, begging us to let them massage you, whist gentle winds brought you your favorite music.
oooh. Sorry got carried away there a bit..
urumph!

No. We cannot simply create our own reality. There's us and there's the world. How we perceive it is not the same as what it is. But we try.

You are just desperate, thus jumping to hasty conclusion without understanding the principles. philosophy and knowledge I presented.

I never asserted "one can simply think oneself into a new reality."
The thinking is a reality, but what is thought [idea or image] cannot be reality itself.
E.g. the act of 'thinking' of a God is real, but the God-that-is-thought is impossible to be real.

Take that thought, go and lie down in the dark and apply it to morality then come back and tell us all what you have found!!
ROLF

[Belinda]

What is your point?
I think you are making mine.

My point is if there be absolute reality, our percepts (optical illusions)and our concepts(miracle at Fatima)are not media that allow access to it. If we are demonstrably bamboozled in specific areas, then we are bamboozlable i.e. we cannot trust what to the naive looks like reality.

I'm not going to allow you to insult my intelligence with reference to Fatima.
Where do you think the illusion exists? out there in reality, or is it some factor of a failure of perception?
You may give examples.

I think the latter. Everybody's perception is fallible. Even yours.

The Fatima event was probably due to a conceptual frame than a failure of perception. No conceptual frame is free from error, even yours, Sculptor.

[Sculptor]

My point is if there be absolute reality, our percepts (optical illusions)and our concepts(miracle at Fatima)are not media that allow access to it. If we are demonstrably bamboozled in specific areas, then we are bamboozlable i.e. we cannot trust what to the naive looks like reality.

I'm not going to allow you to insult my intelligence with reference to Fatima.
Where do you think the illusion exists? out there in reality, or is it some factor of a failure of perception?
You may give examples.

I think the latter. Everybody's perception is fallible. Even yours.

The Fatima event was probably due to a conceptual frame than a failure of perception. No conceptual frame is free from error, even yours, Sculptor.

Of course.
But knowing perception is faulty means never having to believe anything, or at least being harder to fool.

[Skepdick]

Of course.
But knowing perception is faulty means never having to believe anything, or at least being harder to fool.

By the same token you are also harder to persuade that vaccines are safe and nobody is coming to get you - just look at the Trump conspiracy brigade.

Extreme skepticism is as harmful as extreme foolishness.

[Belinda]

Of course.
But knowing perception is faulty means never having to believe anything, or at least being harder to fool.

By the same token you are also harder to persuade that vaccines are safe and nobody is coming to get you - just look at the Trump conspiracy brigade.

Extreme skepticism is as harmful as extreme foolishness.

I bet there is a science of risk.

[Eodnhoj7]

According to you

1. There is no thing in itself.
2. Man as measurer is a thing in itself.
3. A creator exists as beyond man.

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

1. "Only things by man himself" is a principle thus necessitating some greater power beyond man.
2. There is no principle in itself thus a principle lies beyond "only things by man himself"
3. Man is a measure of all things not the measure.