Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's not in English I can recognize.

Actually it is philosophy that is beyond your silo that you cannot recognize

By 'reality' do you mean the consensus assumed picture (idea) of the external world?
If yes, then how can humans be 'in' an idea?

Note there are two senses of reality here,
1. The reality-as-it-is
2. The reality-as-it-is as described, verified, justified and agreed with consensus.

The reality-as-it-is comprises both the internal and external world as a whole.
This wholeness of reality is "co-created" by humans collectively.

If you were good at philosophy, you would have learned to communicate by now. Once you do, you'll be surprised to learn that many people are already ahead of you.

For example googling 'external world by human selves' gives 0 results.
'reality co-created by humans collectively' 0 results
'reality co-created by humans' 1 result
'wholeness of reality is "co-created" by humans collectively' is also not really English.

Anyway, okay so you literally seem to be saying that the totality of reality is co-created by humans. Humans literally create the entire universe somehow. Why do you think that humans literally create the entire universe?

You are insulting your intelligence if you are banking seriously on the popularity of terms, i.e. the ad populum fallacy.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If you claimed otherwise, you cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.
Prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.

[Skepdick]

It doesn't bother me, I'm just asking with respect to your views. So what does it turn out that we're describing, and if it's only ideas, then why bother noting that something is "just an idea . . . it's a way of describing another idea"--that would be the case for every single thing in your view, no?

I don't bother noting it in general. It makes no practical difference. I note it in particular when people insist that they are describing/expressing an "external reality". Which happens to be just about all of Western philosophy.

If everyone had direct access to reality, and natural ability to describe it "as it truly is" then how could anybody ever be "wrong about the facts"?

You are describing the facts as you directly experience them.
I am describing the facts as I directly experience them.
Why are my facts different to yours?

[Atla]

You are insulting your intelligence if you are banking seriously on the popularity of terms, i.e. the ad populum fallacy.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If you claimed otherwise, you cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.
Prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.

If you had intelligence, you would know the difference between using English in an understandable way, and an ad populum fallacy. Or it's your excuse to speak in a way that no one can understand, so you can pretend to know something.

Anyway, so humans aren't literally creating reality, nor do we mean the consensus assumed outside world by reality. Okay then you seem to talk about a third something : "emergence of the existence of reality [creation of]"

What does that mean? Try to explain it in English.

[Skepdick]

If you had intelligence, you would know the difference between using English in an understandable way, and an ad populum fallacy. Or it's your excuse to speak in a way that no one can understand, so you can pretend to know something.

Anyway, so humans aren't literally creating reality, nor do we mean the consensus assumed outside world by reality. Okay then you seem to talk about a third something : "emergence of the existence of reality [creation of]"

What does that mean? Try to explain it in English.

For somebody who "speaks English well" and has a superpower of "understanding", you can't tell that he's alluding to Bacon's Intellectual Globe?

Perhaps you are just uncharitable...

[Terrapin Station]

No, humans did not exist prior to anything else.

Well then we didn't co-create reality. It had to exist already in order for us to exist.

[Skepdick]

Well then we didn't co-create reality. It had to exist already in order for us to exist.

What exactly is the referent of the term "reality" ?
Does the term refer to itself in any manner whatsoever?

This whole notion of "describing things/reality/existence", I wonder when it became a thing...

[Terrapin Station]

If everyone had direct access to reality, and natural ability to describe it "as it truly is" then how could anybody ever be "wrong about the facts"?

There are a few reasons:

(1) We know that perception isn't infallible. We know this because we know what's going wrong in most of those cases, because we know what's really going on contra what went wrong (and again, the very idea of an illusion doesn't even make sense of this is not the case), because most of the time we get things right. If this weren't the case, we couldn't know that something was going wrong, we couldn't know what was going wrong, and we wouldn't be able to correct it when we can (as with glasses, hearing aids, etc.)

(2) We're not always just talking about perceptions when we talk about many facts. We're also reaching conclusions via reasoning, we employ concepts individuals create, meanings individuals assign, and so on. People don't do those things (literally) the same as anyone else, and often enough there can be little similarity in one aspect or another. So this is a separate issue to sort out, where problems on this end do not at all necessarily indicate any problem with observing the world as it is.

(3) Nothing is identical from two different spatiotemporal reference points, and no two people can occupy the same spatiotemporal reference point. So no two people can access the same fact in exactly the same way. Again, this in no way implies inaccuracy of access, but it can easily lead to disputes or to assessments that something is or was gotten wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

Well then we didn't co-create reality. It had to exist already in order for us to exist.

What exactly is the referent of the term "reality" ?

All that exists.

Does the term refer to itself in any manner whatsoever?

Sure. The term is part of what exists.

[Skepdick]

(1) We know that perception isn't infallible. We know this because we know what's going wrong in most of those cases, because we know what's really going on contra what went wrong (and again, the very idea of an illusion doesn't even make sense of this is not the case), because most of the time we get things right. If this weren't the case, we couldn't know that something was going wrong, we couldn't know what was going wrong, and we wouldn't be able to correct it when we can (as with glasses, hearing aids, etc.)

So in making this claim you have some a-priory conception of "fallibility" and "infallibility" and "wrongness" and "rightness" and "correction". That is - you are an idealist. What's going on is precisely what's going on and nothing more.

Which happenings are "erroneous" and which happenings are "otherwise"?
Which happenings are the ones which need "correction" exactly?

(2) We're not always just talking about perceptions when we talk about many facts. We're also reaching conclusions via reasoning, we employ concepts individuals create, meanings individuals assign, and so on. People don't do those things (literally) the same as anyone else, and often enough there can be little similarity in one aspect or another. So this is a separate issue to sort out, where problems on this end do not at all necessarily indicate any problem with observing the world as it is.

But if your perception is fallible then.... then which of those conclusions/reasons/etc are the ones that don't require "correction"?

(3) Nothing is identical from two different spatiotemporal reference points, and no two people can occupy the same spatiotemporal reference point. So no two people can access the same fact in exactly the same way.

Great. So different facts about the same phenomenon are possible.

Again, this in no way implies inaccuracy of access, but it can easily lead to disputes or to assessments that something is or was gotten wrong.

If that's the case then you should have absolutely no problem telling us how to resolve disagreements over factual divergence over a single phenomenon.

You say this is red. I say this is blue. Who is "wrong"?

red.png

[Skepdick]

Well then we didn't co-create reality. It had to exist already in order for us to exist.

What exactly is the referent of the term "reality" ?

All that exists.

Does the term refer to itself in any manner whatsoever?

Sure. The term is part of what exists.

But the term wasn't part of anything until you created it.

So what does the phrase "all that exists" refer to before anybody created any such a phrase.

What does the term "exists" refer to? Don't tell me. Show me.

[Terrapin Station]

So in making this claim you have some a-priory conception of "fallibility" and "infallibility" and "wrongness" and "rightness" and "correction". That is - you are an idealist.

Idealism doesn't conventionally refer to having some a priori conceptions (where I'm ignoring whether it's really an a priori conception or not).

[Skepdick]

Idealism doesn't conventionally refer to having some a priori conceptions (where I'm ignoring whether it's really an a priori conception or not).

Then don't call it idealism. Call it idioticism.

The criticism remains.

[Terrapin Station]

Idealism doesn't conventionally refer to having some a priori conceptions (where I'm ignoring whether it's really an a priori conception or not).

Then don't call it idealism. Call it idioticism.

What would be the basis for supposing the conception isn't based on experience?

[Skepdick]

What would be the basis for supposing the conception isn't based on experience?

What's the basis of suppositions and concepts?

What's the basis of claiming any given supposition/concept is "wrong"?

Foundationalism in a nutshell: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Terrapin Station]

What's the basis of suppositions and concepts?

Depends on the supposition or concept and the person in question. There's not just one answer to that.