VA's non-binary (am)Bivalence

[FlashDangerpants]

I think we should congratulate VA for his/her/their rejection of binary truth values and the principle of bivalence as expressed here...

There is no issue with stating 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' to get the point across that a collective-of-subjects is involved.

With this freeing notion, VA has shed the old ways and no longer is bound by any notion that truth is only true because it expressed a true truth about a true thing. Now there is a web of non-binary interpersonal feels instead. The old bivalanet ways are replaecd by new ambivalent ones, where truth is just truth for me, it doesn't have to be actually true because your truths are just as true for you as mine are for me, and we no longer need the idea that if your truth says my truth is actually false, then one of us has a false truth problem. Now false truths are just other truths.

If one set of intersubjects thinks that abortion is wrong, or that gender is a static biological construct, you can simply move to a more conducive intersubject-orgy and be part of the collective that knows abortion is quite tolerable and gender is an entirely social construct.

[FlashDangerpants]

KIV

[FlashDangerpants]

NoTES!!11!

[Veritas Aequitas]

The OP's is based on very shallow and narrow thinking.

1. There is no 100% certainty and absolute basis of truth.
2. The Correspondence Theory of Truth is at present abandoned by the critical thinkers and rational.
3. Pyrrhonian Skepticism prevails with reality.
4. Re reality, coherentism is more tenable than Foundationalism.
5. There is no thing-in-itself [illusory], there is only things-contingent-human-selves.6.
6. 4. There is no way, truth and reality can be relied upon one subject, so effectively it has be contingent upon a collective of subjects.
7. Reality emerged and is realized as contingent upon a collective-of-subjects via a human-based framework and system of emergence of reality and realization of reality [FSER], then subsequently perceived, known and described [FSERC].

What is a FSERC [Framework and System of Emergence & Realization of Reality and Cognition]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

The question is how reliable and objective is a specific FSERC.
Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

Why the Scientific FSERC is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

[FlashDangerpants]

And the priciple of bivalence?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Abstract: In this paper I argue that bivalent systems in logic and beyond are often too inexact and that bivalence about truth-values and other value spectra will consequently and generally need to be replaced with multivalence.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... version_11

[Atla]

5. There is no thing-in-itself [illusory], there is only things-contingent-human-selves.
6. There is no way, truth and reality can be relied upon one subject, so effectively it has be contingent upon a collective of subjects.

And why aren't other human selves things-in-themselves?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no thing-in-itself.
In terms of humans it refers to the specific individual,
there are no thing[the independent soul]-in-itself, the independent I-AM.
What is the human thing is merely the empirical self [the I-THINK] which is contingent upon the collective-of-human-selves.

In the ultimate sense* only, whatever is a thing or are things, they are contingent upon the collective of human-selves.
* not common or conventional sense.

[Iwannaplato]

6. 4. There is no way, truth and reality can be relied upon one subject, so effectively it has be contingent upon a collective of subjects.

Truth and reality require more than one subject. So, if someone is alone on a desert island after a shipwreak, the island is not real, because only one person believes it is there?

[Iwannaplato]

There are no thing-in-itself.
In terms of humans it refers to the specific individual,
there are no thing[the independent soul]-in-itself, the independent I-AM.
What is the human thing is merely the empirical self [the I-THINK] which is contingent upon the collective-of-human-selves.

You've said that the Moon does not exist when it is not being perceived. Do other people no longer exist when they are alone?

What happens to your neurons when no one can directly observe them?

[Iwannaplato]

7. Reality emerged and is realized as contingent upon a collective-of-subjects via a human-based framework and system of emergence of reality and realization of reality [FSER], then subsequently perceived, known and described [FSERC].

Do gravitational effects, for example those of the earth, change depending on how many humans perceive gravity? Let's say when China and India are in the middle of their nights, so billions of people are no longer conscious. Does this effect the gravitational force of the earth and if so does it affect other planets, tides? Do these effects reduce or disappear?

[Atla]

There are no thing-in-itself.
In terms of humans it refers to the specific individual,
there are no thing[the independent soul]-in-itself, the independent I-AM.
What is the human thing is merely the empirical self [the I-THINK] which is contingent upon the collective-of-human-selves.

In the ultimate sense* only, whatever is a thing or are things, they are contingent upon the collective of human-selves.
* not common or conventional sense.

Yes yes but you didn't address my question, you've never addressed it before. Why are, from my perspective, the empirical selves of other humans, not things-in-themselves too?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Truth and reality require more than one subject. So, if someone is alone on a desert island after a shipwreck, the island is not real, because only one person believes it is there?

Yes, if ...
There are so many nuances, variations and ifs to the above if.

If there is only one human, there is a reality conditioned upon a first-person experience, but it is not objective.
Nevertheless, the island is real subject to one-subject's past memories which was based on the collective-of-subject.

If one month old baby is abandon on an island, if for some reason managed to survive to adulthood, what is real to him would not be objective like our present sense of reality but nevertheless that is still some semblance to our current reality assuming the DNA is the same.

However, note this scenario,
Assuming in a new galaxy, abiogenesis occurred resulting in a human-liked entity, would there be a real island which is exactly what we term 'island' objectively.

So, the principle is,
whatever the reality [truth, knowledge, objectivity], it is contingent upon a specific living-entity based framework and system, be it on Earth or elsewhere in the Universe.
This is applicable to all the other points in the other posts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why are, from my perspective, the empirical selves of other humans, not things-in-themselves too?

That is the problem with narrow, shallow and dogmatic-ideological* thinking.
* ideology philosophical realism with very strong fangs.

Point is the empirical selves of other humans must be dealt on a specific basis, the particular and not the general e.g. to understand apples we deal with what-is-an-apple.
"Things-in-themselves" are the plural of "thing-in-itself" or [thing-in-itself]s.
So, things[10]-in-themselves are 10 x [a thing-in-itself].

The empirical self of an individual is not the thing-in-itself.
The empirical self [the I-THINK] is not the self-in-itself [the I AM] which is the independent soul that can survives physical death.

[Iwannaplato]

Truth and reality require more than one subject. So, if someone is alone on a desert island after a shipwreck, the island is not real, because only one person believes it is there?

Yes, if ...
There are so many nuances, variations and ifs to the above if.

If there is only one human, there is a reality conditioned upon a first-person experience, but it is not objective.

So, the island is not objectively real if only one person is on it. What different, in reality, does the distinction 'objective' make? Would the coconuts he eats be less real? Is the mass of the island not part of the mass of the earth and gravitational forces? What difference does adding to taking away this word entail? Is there any observable thing or quality involved?

Nevertheless, the island is real subject to one-subject's past memories which was based on the collective-of-subject.

I don't understand this sentence.

If one month old baby is abandon on an island, if for some reason managed to survive to adulthood, what is real to him would not be objective like our present sense of reality but nevertheless that is still some semblance to our current reality assuming the DNA is the same.

What would his non-observed DNA have to do with anything? Would the island be less real, when he was three and fishing, than another island with two three year olds? And in what way do the two islands have different degrees objectivity? What about the islands itself have observable differences in terms of reality? Let say on one island one three year old looks at a palm tree and on the other island both children look at the palm tree, what is observable about the tree that is different and earns the label objective?

Is the objectivity of something observable?

If not, why would this word be considered as referring to something real?