FDP, Justify Your 'What is Fact' is Really Real?

[Atla]

"vitriolic and acrimonious attacks" lol

[Veritas Aequitas]

My principle is this:
Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective, is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subjects] Framework and System [FS].

That's incomplete though isn't it? The rest of your principle is something like therefore: whatever comes out of an FSK thing is truth fact knowledge exists and objective. That's the mad end of your stick.

Strawman!

My approach is this;
as observed empirically, whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective is evidently contingent upon a human-based Framework and System.

I have already issued the challenge;
to anyone, show me whatever is claimed as real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective is not evidently contingent upon a Framework and System?

Without the mad part, you don't have the whole deal where morality-proper FSK creates moral facts out of nothing but opinion. And justifying that move was the entire point of everything.

Even you know it is a piece of shit, that's why you are trying to hide your shame under lies. You keep trying to suggest that all frameworks have this feature - they do not, it is a thing that makes yours in particular a complete turd.

I have already justified in many threads, why any FS as defined is generic in all fields of reality and knowledge, so that would encompass moral realities within a moral FS.

The question is whether a proposed FS, e.g. the morality-proper-FS is credible and objective; I have also justified this.
If you don't like the term 'fact' i.e. moral fact, I can justify there are moral realities which are verifiable within science and moral naturalism.
When we bring in empathy into morality-proper, its existence is verifiable first from neuroscience then transmuted as a FS-based moral reality.

So, I did not invent the FS, or FSK, it is a natural occurrence that is supported by empirical evidences.
Kant banked on this concept [human-based framework] based on his Copernican Revolution; that is his central concept of the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason.
If you can prove Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times] I will kneel to you as one of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting,
Justify the grounds and philosophies of whatever you claim as real, truth, knowledge, exist, objective. [omitted 'fact' as you {not me} are unsure of it]
This is critical because it will validate whether you have any credibility [& authority] to critique my views which is mostly Kantian.

Basically, your philosophical knowledge is too shallow, narrow [philosophical gnat] plus dogmatically uncompromising with an arrogant attitude like the logical positivists, now the Analytic Philosophers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas, letting a computer program infer your rational truths, then claim your superior intellectual powers. Finding, your evidence on the internet, from websites are just fact and not information. Ezra Pound, "The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once and get people arguing heatedly over which is the truth."

What are you complaining about?

This is a Philosophy Forum, regardless of where it is sourced the credibility of whatever is presented is whether it is rational or not.
So, don't give silly excuses.
All you need to do is to highlight any of my thesis and therefrom "prove" with arguments and reference why it is false or not tenable.

[FlashDangerpants]

My principle is this:
Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective, is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subjects] Framework and System [FS].

That's incomplete though isn't it? The rest of your principle is something like therefore: whatever comes out of an FSK thing is truth fact knowledge exists and objective. That's the mad end of your stick.

Strawman!

My approach is this;
as observed empirically, whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective is evidently contingent upon a human-based Framework and System.

It isn't a strawman. You have argued many times that your morality-proper thing creates fact simply because it is an FSK and that is what FSKs do.

If that isn't accurate, then what is it that makes the output of morality-proper factual? All that you do in that FSK thing is take some people's opinions, gather them into a bundle, and call that a measurement leading to a fact. The only thing which makes it a fact is the magic of the transformative powers of being in an FSK thing.

That isn't a straw man. That's a description of how your own reasoning has worked for several years.

transmuted as a FS-based moral reality.

... indeed!

[FlashDangerpants]

"vitriolic and acrimonious attacks" lol

By an angry philosophical god!

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas

To understand you, write a sentence that is original. The sentence had been original, you and only you would know. Were you to do an original sentence, I might change my mind about how you were. To have this happen, is a mood change about your intellect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas

To understand you, write a sentence that is original. The sentence had been original, you and only you would know. Were you to do an original sentence, I might change my mind about how you were. To have this happen, is a mood change about your intellect.

Since I had been here, I believe I have posted nearly 500!! threads.
Are they all AI related? No! That prove I am capable of original ideas and presentations.

Do a survey of all my threads and note the originality therein ... I am still presenting original ideas with AI's assistance [for efficiency sake].
It is stupid not to exploit this available tool [AI] for efficiency since it is given free.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's incomplete though isn't it? The rest of your principle is something like therefore: whatever comes out of an FSK thing is truth fact knowledge exists and objective. That's the mad end of your stick.

Strawman!

My approach is this;
as observed empirically, whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective is evidently contingent upon a human-based Framework and System.

It isn't a strawman. You have argued many times that your morality-proper thing creates fact simply because it is an FSK and that is what FSKs do.

If that isn't accurate, then what is it that makes the output of morality-proper factual? All that you do in that FSK thing is take some people's opinions, gather them into a bundle, and call that a measurement leading to a fact. The only thing which makes it a fact is the magic of the transformative powers of being in an FSK thing.

That isn't a straw man. That's a description of how your own reasoning has worked for several years.

Generally said, but that is not the main point.

My main point is:
FSK is Not My Invention
viewtopic.php?t=43227

I am merely re-presenting what is already in practice in a more cohesive and systematic manner.

Since you do not like the term 'fact' [even when you have used it extensively in the past] I can replace it with "realities" i.e. moral realities which are justified within the moral FS [FSERC or FSK].

The FSERC is not where moral realities are created, generated or produced, but rather, the emergence of realities, including moral realities are linked with the FSERC.

You still have not justify what is your basis of reality as grounds to support your condemnation of my 'what is reality' [fact] i.e. FS-based moral reality.
see this:
Critique of WIKI's "Reality"
viewtopic.php?t=43396

[FlashDangerpants]

Strawman!

My approach is this;
as observed empirically, whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective is evidently contingent upon a human-based Framework and System.

It isn't a strawman. You have argued many times that your morality-proper thing creates fact simply because it is an FSK and that is what FSKs do.

If that isn't accurate, then what is it that makes the output of morality-proper factual? All that you do in that FSK thing is take some people's opinions, gather them into a bundle, and call that a measurement leading to a fact. The only thing which makes it a fact is the magic of the transformative powers of being in an FSK thing.

That isn't a straw man. That's a description of how your own reasoning has worked for several years.

Generally said, but that is not the main point.

It is the main point. You are doomed by this single point. Nothing else is worth discussing with your FSK theory. This "transmutation" into facts is not plausible, but it is the purpose of your FSK theory. And there is no other theory that does anything similar so you can now quit pretending FSK is a normal theory like loads of others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It isn't a strawman. You have argued many times that your morality-proper thing creates fact simply because it is an FSK and that is what FSKs do.

If that isn't accurate, then what is it that makes the output of morality-proper factual? All that you do in that FSK thing is take some people's opinions, gather them into a bundle, and call that a measurement leading to a fact. The only thing which makes it a fact is the magic of the transformative powers of being in an FSK thing.

That isn't a straw man. That's a description of how your own reasoning has worked for several years.

Generally said, but that is not the main point.

It is the main point. You are doomed by this single point. Nothing else is worth discussing with your FSK theory. This "transmutation" into facts is not plausible, but it is the purpose of your FSK theory. And there is no other theory that does anything similar so you can now quit pretending FSK is a normal theory like loads of others.

Why are you still sticking to 'fact' when you stated you want to avoid it.

I am now referring to 'moral reality' contingent upon a human-based FS.
It is about a transmutation of one type of FS-reality into another FS-Reality, e.g. from scientific FS-reality to moral FS-reality taking into account the following;
A Critique of Reality[WIKI]
viewtopic.php?t=43396

Here is my justification on the transmutation of realities between FS, i.e. non-moral to moral, etc.
Transmutation of Non-Moral FS Realities to Moral FS Realities
viewtopic.php?p=750534#p750534
Btw, that is my statement, I don't give a damn whether your agree or not; say what you like from your groundless views.

[FlashDangerpants]

Generally said, but that is not the main point.

It is the main point. You are doomed by this single point. Nothing else is worth discussing with your FSK theory. This "transmutation" into facts is not plausible, but it is the purpose of your FSK theory. And there is no other theory that does anything similar so you can now quit pretending FSK is a normal theory like loads of others.

Why are you still sticking to 'fact' when you stated you want to avoid it.

Did I say that? I thought all I said was that I am not in the business of providing a strict definition of fact. I am happy to keep with fact and not bother with the other shit. "Frameworks" do not "transmute" mere opinion into fact. Your FSK theory is the only one that makes any such claim, and that is why your FSK theory is a dead duck.

[Age]

My principle is this:
Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective, is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subjects] Framework and System [FS].

That's incomplete though isn't it? The rest of your principle is something like therefore: whatever comes out of an FSK thing is truth fact knowledge exists and objective. That's the mad end of your stick.

Strawman!

My approach is this;
as observed empirically, whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective is evidently contingent upon a human-based Framework and System.

What you say and claim, here, would be like a penguin saying and claiming that 'whatever is real, fact, Truth, knowledge, exist, objective is evidently contingent upon a penguin-based framework and system.

So, the OBVIOUSNESS, and ABSURDITY, of what you are saying and claiming, here, is SELF-EVIDENT.

But, like penguin-based frameworks and systems are FALLIBLE, so to ARE human-based frameworks and systems are FALLIBLE.

I have already issued the challenge;
to anyone, show me whatever is claimed as real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective is not evidently contingent upon a Framework and System?

I, now, issue the challenge, to "veritas aequitas", to show 'us' what is not contingent upon some framework and system?

If "veritas aequitas" can NOT show 'us' this, then, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY thing is contingent upon SOME framework and system. However, is there A framework and system that is INFALLIBLE?

If no, then what is contingent upon a human-based framework and system IS FALLIBLE. Which MEANS that 'what is CLAIMED to be real, factual, true, knowledge, exist, and objective', based upon some so-called human-based framework and system, could ACTUALLY BE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, INSTEAD.

But, anyway, "veritas aequitas" WILL NOT TAKE UP the CHALLENGE, here, because it is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE TO.

Without the mad part, you don't have the whole deal where morality-proper FSK creates moral facts out of nothing but opinion. And justifying that move was the entire point of everything.

Even you know it is a piece of shit, that's why you are trying to hide your shame under lies. You keep trying to suggest that all frameworks have this feature - they do not, it is a thing that makes yours in particular a complete turd.

I have already justified in many threads, why any FS as defined is generic in all fields of reality and knowledge, so that would encompass moral realities within a moral FS.

The question is whether a proposed FS, e.g. the morality-proper-FS is credible and objective; I have also justified this.
If you don't like the term 'fact' i.e. moral fact, I can justify there are moral realities which are verifiable within science and moral naturalism.
When we bring in empathy into morality-proper, its existence is verifiable first from neuroscience then transmuted as a FS-based moral reality.

So, I did not invent the FS, or FSK, it is a natural occurrence that is supported by empirical evidences.
Kant banked on this concept [human-based framework] based on his Copernican Revolution; that is his central concept of the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason.
If you can prove Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times] I will kneel to you as one of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting,
Justify the grounds and philosophies of whatever you claim as real, truth, knowledge, exist, objective. [omitted 'fact' as you {not me} are unsure of it]
This is critical because it will validate whether you have any credibility [& authority] to critique my views which is mostly Kantian.

Basically, your philosophical knowledge is too shallow, narrow [philosophical gnat] plus dogmatically uncompromising with an arrogant attitude like the logical positivists, now the Analytic Philosophers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the main point. You are doomed by this single point. Nothing else is worth discussing with your FSK theory. This "transmutation" into facts is not plausible, but it is the purpose of your FSK theory. And there is no other theory that does anything similar so you can now quit pretending FSK is a normal theory like loads of others.

Why are you still sticking to 'fact' when you stated you want to avoid it.

Did I say that? I thought all I said was that I am not in the business of providing a strict definition of fact.
I am happy to keep with fact and not bother with the other shit.
"Frameworks" do not "transmute" mere opinion into fact. Your FSK theory is the only one that makes any such claim, and that is why your FSK theory is a dead duck.

You stated do not want to be bothered with 'what if fact'.

This is why I don't need to provide you with any definition of "what is fact" of my own. I am not competing to do that, I am simply pointing out that your doesn't work.

But you cannot ignore 'what is reality?'


The transmutation Between FS-Realities is a very common thing;

Non-Moral Examples of Transmutation Between FS-Realities
viewtopic.php?t=43397

2. Non-Moral Examples of Transmutation Between FS-Realities
AI Wrote:

a. Transmutation in Physics and Engineering FS
Input Reality (Physics FS): Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F = ma) describes the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration.
Output Reality (Engineering FS): This law is transmuted into design principles for constructing bridges, buildings, and vehicles, where force calculations become practical engineering constraints and safety standards.

b. Transmutation in Biological FS to Agricultural FS
Input Reality (Biological FS): The process of photosynthesis in plants, which converts sunlight into chemical energy, is an empirically verifiable reality in biology.
Output Reality (Agricultural FS): Photosynthesis is transmuted into agricultural practices such as optimizing light exposure and spacing for crops to maximize yield.

c. Transmutation in Economic FS to Political FS
Input Reality (Economic FS): The principle of supply and demand governs market equilibrium in economics.
Output Reality (Political FS): This principle is transmuted into policymaking decisions, such as setting price controls or subsidies to stabilize markets or protect consumers.

d. Transmutation in Mathematical FS to Computer Science FS
Input Reality (Mathematical FS): Boolean algebra governs logical operations on binary variables.
Output Reality (Computer Science FS): Boolean logic is transmuted into the design of digital circuits and programming languages.

e. Transmutation in Music FS to Cultural FS
Input Reality (Music FS): The harmonic relationships between musical notes (e.g., consonance and dissonance).
Output Reality (Cultural FS): These relationships inform cultural norms around "pleasant" or "unpleasant" music, influencing traditions, ceremonies, and social expressions.

Conclusion
The process of transmutation from one FS-reality to another involves recontextualizing and adapting empirical, logical, or conceptual realities within the framework and system of the receiving FS.
This process often results in outputs that are meaningful and actionable within the context of the new FS, as seen in both moral and non-moral examples.
For a Kantian Moral FS, transmutation emphasizes the role of universalizability, autonomy, and rationality, ensuring that the moral outputs align with the underlying principles of practical reason.

[FlashDangerpants]

...

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like adictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not exterrnal observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like adictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not exterrnal observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

If you cannot define your 'what is fact' nor 'what is reality', then you are groping with unreality and falsity.
As such, whatever critique you dump on my views, you don't have any credibility at all.
If you ever can break out of your 'silo' you will understand the inevitable FSK and FSERC.

Reality is all-there-is [as within the linguistic FSK] but to realize what is really real, I'd had introduced the Framework and System of Emergence and Reality [FSERC], the FSK or FSC is merely a FS that cognize, perceive and describe whatever emerged and is realized.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

How can reality be verified and then described if there is nothing to that emerged to be verified and described?
So, we have to deal with the emergence and realization of reality within a FSERC.
This is of course beyond you, so I will not explain it to you.