Is Humanity the Standard Bearer of Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is all-there-is which comprised of actuality and potentiality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Leaving aside for a moment that Wikipedia editors are hardly a class of philosophical geniuses, potentiality is literally the unknown, as are all statistics, and if you include the unknown in your version of reality, you're epistemologically sunk.

Everyone understands that Actual means that which is true beyond any delusions etc. It fits the work of what you want the word reality to do, without all the blah blah about what reality means.

This is a semantic problem and i've given an answer that is both necessary and sufficient about how to use these words to be must useful to everyone.

Philosophically 'everyone' is referred to the 'vulgar' i.e. the laymen.

We need to be more rigoristic when doing philosophy.

Note I linked actuality in contrast to potentiality, here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality

Wikipedia is quite a loose reference which I often refer for general and convenience only.
However the wikipedia articles are linked to some direct sources most of the time.
If there are standalone claims [it will be qualified where someone will ask for references].

If you are not comfortable with wikipedia, here is ref from SEP,
12. Actuality and Potentiality
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... /#ActuPote

Since Reality is all-there-is,
which would comprised of actuality and potentiality.

So you are wrong by accusing me of conflating reality with actuality.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=487849 time=1609741202 user_id=7896]
Since Reality is [b]all[/b]-there-is,
which would comprised of actuality and potentiality.

So you are wrong by accusing me of conflating reality with actuality.
[/quote]

Potentiality is not an existing thing, it's a stand-in for the ineffable. Like all statistics it's a measure of Uncertainty, which is definitively Not a part of actual reality in any meaningful sense.

[Iwannaplato]

Humans are the top dog and the most dominant species within the hierarchies of evolutions.

But is humanity the standard bearer of reality i.e. to decide on what reality really is.

To the basic one-celled species perhaps reality is merely like that below [. borrowed from Seeds];
image elided

Others species [viruses or bacteria] may see blobs of the above in greater density.

Note how different animals view the world which reality is definitely differently from that of humans,
HOW ANIMALS SEE THE WORLD
Links elided
Those animals that rely on sonar will see a different world and a different reality.

Then we have babies
How Babies See The World
Link elided

Then we have the 'normal' adult human perception of reality;
Image elided

From the above what-is-reality is subjective to the various species but is the reality perceived by humans the ultimate independent objective reality?

So, here we have VA comparing animals perception and baby homo sapian perception with adult human perception. As part of a questioning realism, objectivity as traditionally conceived.

Great.

What happens if we do this in relation to morals?????

VA is a moral realist but an ontological anti-realist. His morals are attitudinal not deontological, but he considers them real and objective. Fine.

What happens if we do what he did above in relation to ontological realism, questioning it via animals, but instead looking at morals?

What do we do with clashes between the objective moral facts based on animal brains and neurons and those produced/based on human brains and neurons?

[phyllo]

Humans are the top dog and the most dominant species within the hierarchies of evolutions.

"Top dogs" are insects.

Recent figures indicate that there are more than 200 million insects for each human on the planet! A recent article in The New York Times claimed that the world holds 300 pounds of insects for every pound of humans.

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos

[Iwannaplato]

Humans are the top dog and the most dominant species within the hierarchies of evolutions.

"Top dogs" are insects.

Recent figures indicate that there are more than 200 million insects for each human on the planet! A recent article in The New York Times claimed that the world holds 300 pounds of insects for every pound of humans.

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos

Yes, there were a couple of confusions in the OP. What interested me was to see how VA reconciles his moral realism with his ontological anti-realism. I found this old thread where he is showing the subjectivity of perception using animal perception. So, I wondered how his objective moral facts hold up if we compare animal moralities with human ones. Animals clearly have different ideas about acceptable behavior than humans do.

[phyllo]

I only posted because the phrases "top dog" and "dominant species" struck me as overwhelmingly arrogant and egocentric.

Humans need a dose of humility.

They need to get grounded and reconnected to the earth.

The term "humility" comes from the Latin word humilitas, a noun related to the adjective humilis, which may be translated as "humble", but also as "grounded", or "from the earth", since it derives from humus (earth). See the English humus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility

[Iwannaplato]

I only posted because the phrases "top dog" and "dominant species" struck me as overwhelmingly arrogant and egocentric.

Humans need a dose of humility.

They need to get grounded and reconnected to the earth.

The term "humility" comes from the Latin word humilitas, a noun related to the adjective humilis, which may be translated as "humble", but also as "grounded", or "from the earth", since it derives from humus (earth). See the English humus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility

I agree. It's also not really undertanding evolutionary theory.

most dominant species within the hierarchies of evolutions.

is confused.

Bacteria are also doing very well, thank you very much. Some get us to carry them around, like pharaohs did their slaves.

[Agent Smith]

There's tons of things to say on this matter. It boils down to a few simple facts about life one of which is we're not viruses or bacteria or algae or cacti and we also don't wear togas of a certain color, in fact we wear pants ... sometimes.

"Where's the milk?" asked Jennifer. "Oh, so you want to brew some tea, add milk and su .." said Helen. "No, not really," clarified Jennifer. "Oh, so you want to drink milk? I have chocoloate to go with that," Helen offered. "No, I don't wanna drink milk either. I just want some milk," Jennifer spoke, mildly annoyed. "Whatever for Jen?" Helen queried, slightly taken aback by it all. "That's exactly what I want to ask my philosophy professor tomorrow - whatever for? He instructed us to each bring a pomegrenate. I don't get why." Helen, helpful as usual, "he must've given you guys a hint. Professors love doing that!" Jennifer looked at Helen, "milk", she said, "milk is the hint!"

[Harbal]

"Where's the milk?" asked Jennifer. "Oh, so you want to brew some tea, add milk and su .." said Helen. "No, not really," clarified Jennifer. "Oh, so you want to drink milk? I have chocoloate to go with that," Helen offered. "No, I don't wanna drink milk either. I just want some milk," Jennifer spoke, mildly annoyed. "Whatever for Jen?" Helen queried, slightly taken aback by it all. "That's exactly what I want to ask my philosophy professor tomorrow - whatever for? He instructed us to each bring a pomegrenate. I don't get why." Helen, helpful as usual, "he must've given you guys a hint. Professors love doing that!" Jennifer looked at Helen, "milk", she said, "milk is the hint!"

Well, at least Jennifer shouldn't end up crying over spilt milk if she hasn't got any. Perhaps her professor will accept a cloud with a silver lining instead of a pomegranate.

[commonsense]

First we do not see reality like that photo presents.
Yes, some people think so, but if they spent a moment examining how they actually see, when they are on a city street, it is nothing at all like that photo. If you doubt this, take a moment and try it out. In fact it is much more complicated than even a handheld steadicam flitting around creates images.

But beyond that, I suppose there are a few people who might say that the way humans perceive is the ultimate independent objective reality.

But most people in a philosophy forum are going to realize that perception is fallible, filtered and includes interpretation, re-creation and guesswork and approximations. Nevertheless, on that street, the fallible human saying the streetlights are farther away from his body (were he on that street) than the car that appears to him as grey (imagine him pointing out that car) would be objectively correct.
Because determining location was useful for animals, they have developed a fallible sense, vision, that often enough gives the correct presentation of distance and location. Over and over and over.
Color is more purely subjective, though useful and can aid (like a sign might) determine identities of things. But location is damn objective. And sure one can whip out Gettier problems and optical illusions and more, but these only undermine the idea that vision is infallible in relation to location. It surely is not that. But it does directly with great regularity pass on objective location in relation to the body and other people and objects. Subjective objective are not binarily immaculately separate except to the religious.

So you agree few people would say, "the way humans perceive is the ultimate independent objective reality."

But from the human perspective, is there "an ultimate independent objective reality" which is beyond that which is perceived.

Only the ultimate independent objective reality can be the ultimate independent objective reality.

What humans perceive is subject to interpretation. As you have pointed out, interpretation varies according to species. As the dominant species we have the right to declare reality for all other species whether those species can perceive our version of reality or not.

We can only assume that there is a reality beyond what we can perceive. Our claim is that what we perceive is the closest representation of reality that there is.

[commonsense]

Reality is consensus experience. A bird or an amoeba senses the same reality at a different resolution with different senses. We are the standard bearer only because we are the ones who use language to express that experience to others.

I would note that different resolutions result in different interpretations, hence it is understandable that there are different representations of reality for different species.

[Age]

Humans are the top dog and the most dominant species within the hierarchies of evolutions.

So, crocodiles, for example, have been around for about 200 million years while the human species has only been around from about 300,000 years to 3 million years, (depending on who one listens to), but 'you' here, "veritas aequitas", want to claim that "your" species is the DOMINANT species, within the so-called 'hierarchies of evolution'.

The way 'you', human beings, are 'evolving', or, maybe more correctly, 'devolving' the human species could become extinct, along with all of the other human being caused species extinctions.

But is humanity the standard bearer of reality i.e. to decide on what reality really is.

This is a Truly STRANGE QUESTION.

The ONLY True 'thing', which IS 'the standard bearer of 'reality' IS 'reality', itself.

AND, HOW and WHEN what IS 'reality', EXACTLY, IS DECIDED among 'human thought'.

Not that 'human thought' is ALWAYS a RELIABLE SOURCE 'it' is the ONLY SOURCE for information gathering and sharing.

To the basic one-celled species perhaps reality is merely like that below [. borrowed from Seeds];


Others species [viruses or bacteria] may see blobs of the above in greater density.

Note how different animals view the world which reality is definitely differently from that of humans,
HOW ANIMALS SEE THE WORLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ss-nmT7oAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAC1t2nGkfg

Those animals that rely on sonar will see a different world and a different reality.

'Those animals', like 'you', 'human animals', do NOT 'see' a DIFFERENT 'world' NOR a DIFFERENT 'reality', 'you' ALL instead just have DIFFERENT views, or DIFFERENT perspectives of the One and ONLY True 'world' or 'Reality', Itself.

By the way, this here is A CLUE as to HOW 'one' can find, gain, and HAVE the One and ONLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, or VIEW of 'Reality', or the Universe, Itself.

Then we have babies
How Babies See The World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0rrS51ry2s

Then we have the 'normal' adult human perception of reality;

Would I be WRONG "veritas aequitas" is saying that 'you' BELIEVE that EVERY one that has the SAME VIEWS as 'you' IS NORMAL, and EVERY one with DIFFERENT VIEWS from 'you' is NOT normal or ABNORMAL?

From the above what-is-reality is subjective to the various species but is the reality perceived by humans the ultimate independent objective reality?

Is this an example of one of those so-called 'rhetorical questions'? Or what I like to call an example of one's OWN BELIEFS, and another form and example of 'confirmation biases' IN PLAY, and, AT WORK.

[Age]

Note if there are aliens out there who are 10x or many Xs more advanced than humans they may see a different objective reality than humans.

And, OBVIOUSLY, if there are aliens IN this EXACT SAME Universe who are 10 times or many times LESS advanced than 'you', human beings, then they ALSO MAY DIFFERENT views or DIFFERENT perspectives of the EXACT SAME 'Reality'.

[Harbal]

But is humanity the standard bearer of reality i.e. to decide on what reality really is.

This is a Truly STRANGE QUESTION.

Having become well accustomed to his truly strange answers, I don't find the appearance of strange questions at all surprising.

[Age]

First we do not see reality like that photo presents.
Yes, some people think so, but if they spent a moment examining how they actually see, when they are on a city street, it is nothing at all like that photo. If you doubt this, take a moment and try it out. In fact it is much more complicated than even a handheld steadicam flitting around creates images.

But beyond that, I suppose there are a few people who might say that the way humans perceive is the ultimate independent objective reality.

But most people in a philosophy forum are going to realize that perception is fallible, filtered and includes interpretation, re-creation and guesswork and approximations. Nevertheless, on that street, the fallible human saying the streetlights are farther away from his body (were he on that street) than the car that appears to him as grey (imagine him pointing out that car) would be objectively correct.
Because determining location was useful for animals, they have developed a fallible sense, vision, that often enough gives the correct presentation of distance and location. Over and over and over.
Color is more purely subjective, though useful and can aid (like a sign might) determine identities of things. But location is damn objective. And sure one can whip out Gettier problems and optical illusions and more, but these only undermine the idea that vision is infallible in relation to location. It surely is not that. But it does directly with great regularity pass on objective location in relation to the body and other people and objects. Subjective objective are not binarily immaculately separate except to the religious.

So you agree few people would say, "the way humans perceive is the ultimate independent objective reality."

The WAY 'you', adult human beings, generally or mostly PERCEIVE is CERTAINLY NOT the so-called 'ultimate independent objective reality'.

HOWEVER, ALL of 'you' ONCE were PERCEIVING the again so-called 'ultimate independent objective reality'. That is; 'you' ALL ONCE were LOOKING AT and SEEING 'Reality' for what 'It' REALLY IS, EXACTLY.

But from the human perspective, is there "an ultimate independent objective reality" which is beyond that which is perceived.

'Reality' IS what 'It' IS. There is NO escaping this Fact.

Now, what IS this so-called 'human perspective'?

OBVIOUSLY the perspective 'you', "veritas aequitas", HAVE of some 'things' is NOT the perspective of "others" of the 'human species'. So, AGAIN, what IS this so-called 'human perspective', EXACTLY?

ANSWER these QUESTIONS OPENLY and Honestly, and then we WILL BE somewhat CLOSER to UNRAVELING this EXACT Truth of 'things' here, for you.