What is your Framework and System of Reality?

[Eodnhoj7]

How come you are so stupid in regard to this common sense knowledge?
Do you have proof a corpse is conscious?

1. One FSK is dependent upon another FSK beyond it. Eventually this regresses to metaphysics

There is no need to regress to Metaphysics.
Rational people do not resort to metaphysics which deal with the illusory.
It is only the delusional [like you] who cling to the illusory things of metaphysics which is not grounded on possible experience and knowledge.

True one FSK relies upon input from many other FSKs, but there is an acceptance of the limits of the respective FSK to what is empirically possible and philosophically sound.

Take the scientific FSK for example where scientific theories are qualified to the conditions of the FSK.
What is critical is whether the scientific claims are testable, repeatable, justifiable and credible to be used for the progress of humanity.

2. Do you have proof consciousness ends at death, ie consciousness only results from organisms? You would have to define consciousness to fit your argument considering consciousness is pattern formation and this pattern formation, ie reality, changes to another pattern after death.

Note the meaning of 'consciousness'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consciousness?s=t
It is obvious a person who is certified to be brain death do not possess the above sort of consciousness.

As usual you are being rhetorical and trying to squeeze meanings of real things into your illusory metaphysical world of delusions.
I have explained why you are reifying the illusory is due to very desperate psychology of existential dissonance at the unconscious levels of your mind.

Btw, what do you gain by insisting there is a soul [with consciousness] that survives physical death.

1. Metaphysics is the observation of patterns. "Being qua being" is the repetition of being.

2. Consciousness as grounded in awareness is the manifestation and imprinting of patterns, as such all of being has a degree of consciousness as all being is the manifestation and imprinting of patterns.

[Eodnhoj7]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

Here is a case, where a claim of reality is made but Eodnhoj7 is clueless as to what FSR or FSK he is relying upon to arrive at his conclusion.

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

An FSK is an abstraction as it cannot be physically pointed too. As a pure abstraction it falls under the category of metaphysics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I didn't read through every post, so direct me to the post(s) in question if this was addressed already, but what exactly would you say the necessary and sufficient criteria are for a "framework and system of reality" or "framework and system of knowledge"?

I presume you are asking me the above?

All Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge must leveraged and be conditioned upon its constitution [implied or explicit] with all the relevant requirements, mechanisms, processes, etc..

For example if say the Scientific FSR/FSK has its specific criteria [s] that enable a theory to qualify as a scientific theory.
The main requirements is scientists must comply with the scientific methods, peer reviews and other requirements.

In addition, note the Top 9 Main Characteristics of scientific knowledge;
The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.

viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

You suggested that there is a general scientific FSR, and that it's different than a chemistry FSR, an astronomy FSR, etc. This seems like a very vague idea to me, and it seems very dubious that it would give more weight to any claim.

Note the requirements of the scientific FSK above which is general.

The Chemistry FSR/FSK is a sub-FSK of the Scientific FSK.
Whilst the Chemistry FSR/FSK must adopt the imperative conditions of the scientific FSK, the chemistry FSK has its specific features, where it will cover chemical combinations and reactions which is distinct from say Physics and biology.

The FSR/FSK is very critical to any knowledge claim, as the first thing that is needed is to understand which FSR/FSK should a claim be subjected to. Surely what is chemistry is not suitable to deal within biology.
Thus whatever fact is to be verified and justified it must always be qualified to a specific FSK, e.g. Science, legal, economics, sports, medical, astronomy, anthropology, chemistry, physics, etc.

At the fringe,
that the fact, the current Miss Universe is Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa, is only a fact as qualified to the Miss Universe Organizational FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

What you're describing isn't a general set of necessary and sufficient criteria for something to count as a "framework and structure of reality/knowledge" though, which was what I was curious about.

It sounds like you're simply describing some characteristics of various fields, characteristics that make the field that field rather than something else, and then noting that certain claims don't fit with what conventionally makes the field in question the field it is. So, for example, saying that a particular grocery store usually has red velvet cake wouldn't be a claim in astronomy, and a claim about covalent bonds wouldn't be a claim about musical composition. Which is cogent insofar as it goes, but I'm not sure what the relevance or importance of it is.

You seemed to have missed my major point which I stated above, i.e.

All Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge must leveraged and be conditioned upon its constitution [implied or explicit] with all the relevant requirements, mechanisms, processes, etc..

Note what is a Conceptual Framework;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

What is critical with a Framework and System is its constitution [explicit or implicit] that conditioned the specific FSK.
The features and characteristics are a part of the constitution.

Relevance? Note I stated in the OP,
My Point:
"Whatever claim of reality [of fact, truth and knowledge] made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a [specific] Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK]."

The original contention was Peter Holmes claimed there are no moral facts.

My argument is;

• 1. Specific facts are verified with its specific FSR/FSK [see OP].
  2. There is a credible moral FSR/FSK [to be justified].
  3. Therefore there are true moral facts justified from a moral FSK.

[Terrapin Station]

What's the difference, exactly, between:

"Describing some characteristics of various fields, characteristics that make the field that field rather than something else, and then noting that certain claims don't fit with what conventionally makes the field in question the field it is"

And

"A Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge's 'constitution,' with all the relevant requirements, mechanisms, processes, etc."?

There is a credible moral FSR/FSK [to be justified].

Just curious if you're going to get around to that part.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What's the difference, exactly, between:

"Describing some characteristics of various fields, characteristics that make the field that field rather than something else, and then noting that certain claims don't fit with what conventionally makes the field in question the field it is"

And

"A Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge's 'constitution,' with all the relevant requirements, mechanisms, processes, etc."?

There is a credible moral FSR/FSK [to be justified].

Just curious if you're going to get around to that part.

Earlier you disagreed with my concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality.

While there are question as to the existence of a moral FSK, no one here has question what is a Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality which I thought was very easily understood by an average intellectual person.

I am surprised you are skeptical of a Framework and System of Knowledge.

Instead of answering the above, what is a Framework and System can be understood via the following;

What is a Framework [conceptual and intellectual]?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework
A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.

The use of the term conceptual framework crosses both scale (large and small theories)[4][5] and contexts (social science,[6][7] marketing,[8] applied science,[9] art[10] etc.). Its explicit definition and application can therefore vary.

Conceptual frameworks are particularly useful as organizing devices in empirical research. One set of scholars has applied the notion of conceptual framework to deductive, empirical research at the micro- or individual study level.

What is a System?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
A system is a group of interacting or interrelated entities that form a unified whole.[1] A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory.

You will understand what is a Framework and System of knowledge by combining the above two definitions.

If you still cannot understand nor agree with the concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge, then, I would prefer to avoid and skip this discussion.

[Terrapin Station]

Earlier you disagreed with my concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality.

What? No I didn't. I asked you to explain it better, namely, via giving necessary and sufficient criteria for anything to count as an FSK/R. And then I said what it seemed like you were on about in lieu of a more robust characterization of just what counts as an FSK/R. That's an invitation to shore up your work, it's not a disagreement.

While there are question as to the existence of a moral FSK, no one here has question what is a Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality which I thought was very easily understood by an average intellectual person.

Great. Then if you're not willing to do it, surely someone else who understands it could present the necessary and sufficient criteria for something to count as an FSK/R? Could someone else reading this step up to the plate, maybe, if Veritas isn't going to do so?

A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.

I'm asking for necessary and sufficient criteria for something to count as a "framework" versus whatever the alternatives would be. People formulate concepts, they have ideas, they analyze things, etc.--what makes some of those activities count as "framework" whereas sometimes it wouldn't be a "framework"?

What you're not getting is that I'm wanting you to give me a set of demarcation criteria. It could be fuzzy if it needs to be--it could be in the manner of property clusters, for example (so that, say, we give 10 criteria, and any arbitrary set of 6 or 7 of them would make something count as a "framework"), although I also want you to say which criteria are necessary and which would be sufficient, but give some demarcation criteria. And really, I want you to do this for an FSK/R, not just the terms in isolation from each other.

[Skepdick]

Great. Then if you're not willing to do it, surely someone else who understands it could present the necessary and sufficient criteria for something to count as an FSK/R? Could someone else reading this step up to the plate, maybe, if Veritas isn't going to do so?

Logic is an FSK/R. What are the necessary and sufficient criteria for Logic?

It's also worth noting that when I asked you this question last time, you didn't step up to the plate either.

I wonder why.

[bahman]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

Here is a case, where a claim of reality is made but Eodnhoj7 is clueless as to what FSR or FSK he is relying upon to arrive at his conclusion.

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

We are interacting minds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

We are interacting minds.

The mind [emergent] of the human individual is interacting with and is part and parcel of reality.
The active interacting human mind disappears with mortality.

[bahman]

My Point:
Whatever claim of reality made by anyone, it must be grounded upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].

We are interacting minds.

The mind [emergent] of the human individual is interacting with and is part and parcel of reality.

There is no emergence.

The active interacting human mind disappears with mortality.

This is not correct unless you say that human being is not free.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We are interacting minds.

The mind [emergent] of the human individual is interacting with and is part and parcel of reality.

There is no emergence.

The active interacting human mind disappears with mortality.

This is not correct unless you say that human being is not free.

What I am expressing is based on evidences verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Your idea of "free' not empirically + philosophically based, thus is too woo woo.

[bahman]

The mind [emergent] of the human individual is interacting with and is part and parcel of reality.

There is no emergence.

The active interacting human mind disappears with mortality.

This is not correct unless you say that human being is not free.

What I am expressing is based on evidences verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

What evidence you have that mind is an emergent thing? How could you justify it empirically and philosophically?

Your idea of "free' not empirically + philosophically based, thus is too woo woo.

What do you mean with free?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no emergence.


This is not correct unless you say that human being is not free.

What I am expressing is based on evidences verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

What evidence you have that mind is an emergent thing? How could you justify it empirically and philosophically?

The human mind is defined as;

• The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

All the above are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Emergent = arising as a natural ... consequence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergent

Your idea of "free' not empirically + philosophically based, thus is too woo woo.

What do you mean with free?

I will go along with what relevant within this definition of free;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

• e.g.
  8a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded

i.e. free humanly but not in the absolute sense.

In your case your 'free' is still active and valid with a corpse which is not-humanly.

[bahman]

What I am expressing is based on evidences verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

What evidence you have that mind is an emergent thing? How could you justify it empirically and philosophically?

The human mind is defined as;

• The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

All the above are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Emergent = arising as a natural ... consequence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergent

This is a very poor definition of emergence. Let's say that the matter has a set of properties, such as mass, charge, etc. but not consciousness. Could matter in a given configuration, the brain, for example, become conscious?

Your idea of "free' not empirically + philosophically based, thus is too woo woo.

What do you mean with free?

I will go along with what relevant within this definition of free;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

• e.g.
  8a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded

i.e. free humanly but not in the absolute sense.

In your case your 'free' is still active and valid with a corpse which is not-humanly.

I am happy with these definitions. Are you suggesting that free will also is emergent?

[Skepdick]

Your idea of "free' not empirically + philosophically based, thus is too woo woo.

Your will is not free if it can be predicted.

Predicted by whom? ANYONE. Especially your former self.

This is empirically testable.