Challenging the Objectivity of Science

[Age]

Did dogs [cats, elephants, etc.] tell you they make distinction?
It is only you as human beings who arrive at such a conclusion.

Seemingly, organic things also 'make distinction' oil do not mix with water, magnetic positive poles [north, south] repel negative and so on, but ultimately it is 'humans' who make such inferences of the concept of distinctions.

Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction.

Certain molecules combine with others...same with particles...these are distinctions.

Existence is self-aware by degree of cycling distinctions.

"Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction."
"that is a distinction" said who??

You, a human?
Common sense = common sense by common people in consensus.

It is these types of misinterpretations of sayings like, 'common sense', why there is, still, so much confusion and misunderstandings among the adult human beings population, in the days when this is being written.

Scientifically [biology] objective = intersubjective consensus with a group of scientists and the scientific framework and system.

Therefore,
'distinction' whether reality, concept or "whatever is" cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.

Have you, still, not yet realized and comprehended that any talk about whatever human beings 'talk about' can never be 'absolutely independent of the human condition'. To keep going on as though there could be could be labelled under the 'Truly insane', well from my perspective anyway.

That is a fact.
To insist otherwise is delusional.

No one does.

To keep going on as though there is a human being who would even consider 'trying to' 'insist otherwise' could also be considered 'delusional', and 'very much so', as well.

[Eodnhoj7]

Did dogs [cats, elephants, etc.] tell you they make distinction?
It is only you as human beings who arrive at such a conclusion.

Seemingly, organic things also 'make distinction' oil do not mix with water, magnetic positive poles [north, south] repel negative and so on, but ultimately it is 'humans' who make such inferences of the concept of distinctions.

Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction.

Certain molecules combine with others...same with particles...these are distinctions.

Existence is self-aware by degree of cycling distinctions.

"Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction."
"that is a distinction" said who??

You, a human?
Common sense = common sense by common people in consensus.
Scientifically [biology] objective = intersubjective consensus with a group of scientists and the scientific framework and system.

Therefore,
'distinction' whether reality, concept or "whatever is" cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.

That is a fact.
To insist otherwise is delusional.

The dog distinguishes between foods.

And what exactly is the distinction of the human condition without relegating humanity to be defined by what it is not thus creating a relationship of contrast where human identity is rooted in the non-human?

You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs.

Human beings are superpositioned conditions.

[MJA]

Beneath those theory laden observations of science, uncertain at best, is a single absolute. A truth that unites science and religion, mankind and the Universe. If one is to build a castle high into the sky, a solid foundation is required. Simplify, find the truth, and start anew. =

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction.

Certain molecules combine with others...same with particles...these are distinctions.

Existence is self-aware by degree of cycling distinctions.

"Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction."
"that is a distinction" said who??

You, a human?
Common sense = common sense by common people in consensus.
Scientifically [biology] objective = intersubjective consensus with a group of scientists and the scientific framework and system.

Therefore,
'distinction' whether reality, concept or "whatever is" cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.

That is a fact.
To insist otherwise is delusional.

The dog distinguishes between foods.

And what exactly is the distinction of the human condition without relegating humanity to be defined by what it is not thus creating a relationship of contrast where human identity is rooted in the non-human?

You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs.

Human beings are superpositioned conditions.

My argument leveraged upon Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Whatever emerged, realized and inferred cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

"You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs."
Whatever the realization and inference, that is imperative upon the human conditions.

Point is you cannot avoid the human conditions from anything.

The relevance and criticalness is to ensure no one or group cannot conclude there are things which are absolutely independent of the human conditions, e.g. God as absolutely independent from the human conditions and which at the worst deliver commands for believer to kill non-believers merely based on faith.

There are no consequences if we accept whatever-is-reality is conditioned upon the human conditions, where the gold standard is Science, which is very positive to the well-being of the individual and humanity.
Why are you so insistence reality [distinctions, consciousness etc.] exist as absolutely independent things?
As I had stated, your insistence of such is purely psychological and ignorance of human conditions.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction."
"that is a distinction" said who??

You, a human?
Common sense = common sense by common people in consensus.
Scientifically [biology] objective = intersubjective consensus with a group of scientists and the scientific framework and system.

Therefore,
'distinction' whether reality, concept or "whatever is" cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.

That is a fact.
To insist otherwise is delusional.

The dog distinguishes between foods.

And what exactly is the distinction of the human condition without relegating humanity to be defined by what it is not thus creating a relationship of contrast where human identity is rooted in the non-human?

You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs.

Human beings are superpositioned conditions.

My argument leveraged upon Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Whatever emerged, realized and inferred cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

"You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs."
Whatever the realization and inference, that is imperative upon the human conditions.

Point is you cannot avoid the human conditions from anything.

The relevance and criticalness is to ensure no one or group cannot conclude there are things which are absolutely independent of the human conditions, e.g. God as absolutely independent from the human conditions and which at the worst deliver commands for believer to kill non-believers merely based on faith.

There are no consequences if we accept whatever-is-reality is conditioned upon the human conditions, where the gold standard is Science, which is very positive to the well-being of the individual and humanity.
Why are you so insistence reality [distinctions, consciousness etc.] exist as absolutely independent things?
As I had stated, your insistence of such is purely psychological and ignorance of human conditions.

"The human condition" is a distinction, by degree it is a subset of the occurence of distinctions.

What we know is the emergence of distinctions, and the use of distinctions as a potential means of further distinctions.

Given the cyclical pattern of distinctions, the repetition of distinctions by which order occurs, and "the human condition" making the distinction of "the human condition" as a cycle, what is evident is that consciousness is expressed and maintained by recursion.

Given the recursive nature of distinction, evidenced within "awareness of awareness" and all patterns that allow things to be, the universe effectively is self-aware thus consciousness is not limited to human means but effectively makes the human condition a mediary by degree of its over lapping conditions that allow it to occur.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The dog distinguishes between foods.

And what exactly is the distinction of the human condition without relegating humanity to be defined by what it is not thus creating a relationship of contrast where human identity is rooted in the non-human?

You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs.

Human beings are superpositioned conditions.

My argument leveraged upon Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Whatever emerged, realized and inferred cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

"You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs."
Whatever the realization and inference, that is imperative upon the human conditions.

Point is you cannot avoid the human conditions from anything.

The relevance and criticalness is to ensure no one or group cannot conclude there are things which are absolutely independent of the human conditions, e.g. God as absolutely independent from the human conditions and which at the worst deliver commands for believer to kill non-believers merely based on faith.

There are no consequences if we accept whatever-is-reality is conditioned upon the human conditions, where the gold standard is Science, which is very positive to the well-being of the individual and humanity.
Why are you so insistence reality [distinctions, consciousness etc.] exist as absolutely independent things?
As I had stated, your insistence of such is purely psychological and ignorance of human conditions.

"The human condition" is a distinction, by degree it is a subset of the occurence of distinctions.

What we know is the emergence of distinctions, and the use of distinctions as a potential means of further distinctions.

Given the cyclical pattern of distinctions, the repetition of distinctions by which order occurs, and "the human condition" making the distinction of "the human condition" as a cycle, what is evident is that consciousness is expressed and maintained by recursion.

Given the recursive nature of distinction, evidenced within "awareness of awareness" and all patterns that allow things to be, the universe effectively is self-aware thus consciousness is not limited to human means but effectively makes the human condition a mediary by degree of its over lapping conditions that allow it to occur.

If I am not mistaken you have a strong insistence of the concept of 'loop'.

Eodnhoj7: "Given the recursive nature of distinction, evidenced within "awareness of awareness" and all patterns that allow things to be, the universe effectively is self-aware thus consciousness is not limited to human means but effectively makes the human condition a mediary by degree of its over lapping conditions that allow it to occur."

1. The emergence and realization of the above is grounded on the human conditions.

2. Whatever you respond to 1 is grounded on the human conditions.

3. Whatever you respond to 2 is grounded on the human conditions.

4. There is no escape from the grounding of the human conditions.

5. To try to escape from the grounding of the human conditions is going off tangent into la la land, of the supernatural and the unreal where the risk to humanity is the extermination of the human species.

6. Point 5 is grounded on the human conditions.

Ref:
There is/are no such thing as a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves. Kant
There are only things as things-in-humans, i.e. things grounded on the human conditions.

[Eodnhoj7]

My argument leveraged upon Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Whatever emerged, realized and inferred cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

"You make the distinction of the human condition while ignoring the process of distinction transcends human conditions for humanity is a distinction and all distinctions are effectively the emergence of limits by which conditionality occurs."
Whatever the realization and inference, that is imperative upon the human conditions.

Point is you cannot avoid the human conditions from anything.

The relevance and criticalness is to ensure no one or group cannot conclude there are things which are absolutely independent of the human conditions, e.g. God as absolutely independent from the human conditions and which at the worst deliver commands for believer to kill non-believers merely based on faith.

There are no consequences if we accept whatever-is-reality is conditioned upon the human conditions, where the gold standard is Science, which is very positive to the well-being of the individual and humanity.
Why are you so insistence reality [distinctions, consciousness etc.] exist as absolutely independent things?
As I had stated, your insistence of such is purely psychological and ignorance of human conditions.

"The human condition" is a distinction, by degree it is a subset of the occurence of distinctions.

What we know is the emergence of distinctions, and the use of distinctions as a potential means of further distinctions.

Given the cyclical pattern of distinctions, the repetition of distinctions by which order occurs, and "the human condition" making the distinction of "the human condition" as a cycle, what is evident is that consciousness is expressed and maintained by recursion.

Given the recursive nature of distinction, evidenced within "awareness of awareness" and all patterns that allow things to be, the universe effectively is self-aware thus consciousness is not limited to human means but effectively makes the human condition a mediary by degree of its over lapping conditions that allow it to occur.

If I am not mistaken you have a strong insistence of the concept of 'loop'.

Eodnhoj7: "Given the recursive nature of distinction, evidenced within "awareness of awareness" and all patterns that allow things to be, the universe effectively is self-aware thus consciousness is not limited to human means but effectively makes the human condition a mediary by degree of its over lapping conditions that allow it to occur."

1. The emergence and realization of the above is grounded on the human conditions.

2. Whatever you respond to 1 is grounded on the human conditions.

3. Whatever you respond to 2 is grounded on the human conditions.

4. There is no escape from the grounding of the human conditions.

5. To try to escape from the grounding of the human conditions is going off tangent into la la land, of the supernatural and the unreal where the risk to humanity is the extermination of the human species.

6. Point 5 is grounded on the human conditions.

Ref:
There is/are no such thing as a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves. Kant
There are only things as things-in-humans, i.e. things grounded on the human conditions.

You claim human condition is the be all end all yet in observing the observer of a thought, to see what sees thought there is nothing there. The empirical senses do not see thoughts in the mind, what sees thought in the mind cannot be seen for the observer is merely potentiality, unactualized reality. Basic meditation practice corroborate this statement.

Human conditions are but containers or vessels of potentiality, to relegate the reality of spirituality to a temple is to avoid what is in it.

[popeye1945]

To be an organism is to be a subjective reactive creature locked into its subjectivity, but through that subjectivity, yearning to understand the larger picture, the grand mystery, making incremental headway in trying to discern what the objective world is in and of itself. The revelation that all is energy is a breakthrough, one number to the greatest combination lock that ever existed. This title question, challenging the objectivity of science, is not complicated, as there is nothing objective. You are one bubble of subjectivity, the measure and the meaning of all things. All things man-made are biological extensions of his human nature, created in his outer world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"The human condition" is a distinction, by degree it is a subset of the occurence of distinctions.

What we know is the emergence of distinctions, and the use of distinctions as a potential means of further distinctions.

Given the cyclical pattern of distinctions, the repetition of distinctions by which order occurs, and "the human condition" making the distinction of "the human condition" as a cycle, what is evident is that consciousness is expressed and maintained by recursion.

Given the recursive nature of distinction, evidenced within "awareness of awareness" and all patterns that allow things to be, the universe effectively is self-aware thus consciousness is not limited to human means but effectively makes the human condition a mediary by degree of its over lapping conditions that allow it to occur.

If I am not mistaken you have a strong insistence of the concept of 'loop'.

Eodnhoj7: "Given the recursive nature of distinction, evidenced within "awareness of awareness" and all patterns that allow things to be, the universe effectively is self-aware thus consciousness is not limited to human means but effectively makes the human condition a mediary by degree of its over lapping conditions that allow it to occur."

1. The emergence and realization of the above is grounded on the human conditions.

2. Whatever you respond to 1 is grounded on the human conditions.

3. Whatever you respond to 2 is grounded on the human conditions.

4. There is no escape from the grounding of the human conditions.

5. To try to escape from the grounding of the human conditions is going off tangent into la la land, of the supernatural and the unreal where the risk to humanity is the extermination of the human species.

6. Point 5 is grounded on the human conditions.

Ref:
There is/are no such thing as a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves. Kant
There are only things as things-in-humans, i.e. things grounded on the human conditions.

You claim human condition is the be all end all yet in observing the observer of a thought, to see what sees thought there is nothing there. The empirical senses do not see thoughts in the mind, what sees thought in the mind cannot be seen for the observer is merely potentiality, unactualized reality. Basic meditation practice corroborate this statement.

Human conditions are but containers or vessels of potentiality, to relegate the reality of spirituality to a temple is to avoid what is in it.

Note my response in this post which is relevant to the above;
viewtopic.php?p=787965#p787965

Also this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=44705

Suggest you refer the above in totality to your Deep AI; bet it will give the same answers.

[Eodnhoj7]

The human condition, by degree of evolution, is a ship of theseus. You use the term but it is a self referencing concept of experience that humans admit is not infinite in a strict sense thus relegating your foundations to a finite concept that inevitably not only changes but emerged and dissolves.

You say everything is dependent upon the human condition and yet the human condition observes scientific frameworks which claim the human condition is finite.

The human condition is a concept and as such involves the inherent paradoxes of conceptualization.

What exactly do you define as the human condition?

[Eodnhoj7]

To be an organism is to be a subjective reactive creature locked into its subjectivity, but through that subjectivity, yearning to understand the larger picture, the grand mystery, making incremental headway in trying to discern what the objective world is in and of itself. The revelation that all is energy is a breakthrough, one number to the greatest combination lock that ever existed. This title question, challenging the objectivity of science, is not complicated, as there is nothing objective. You are one bubble of subjectivity, the measure and the meaning of all things. All things man-made are biological extensions of his human nature, created in his outer world.

That is your subjective opinion by degree of your own foundations of argument.

[popeye1945]

To be an organism is to be a subjective reactive creature locked into its subjectivity, but through that subjectivity, yearning to understand the larger picture, the grand mystery, making incremental headway in trying to discern what the objective world is in and of itself. The revelation that all is energy is a breakthrough, one number to the greatest combination lock that ever existed. This title question, challenging the objectivity of science, is not complicated, as there is nothing objective. You are one bubble of subjectivity, the measure and the meaning of all things. All things man-made are biological extensions of his human nature, created in his outer world.

That is your subjective opinion by degree of your own foundations of argument.

There are only subjective opinions. Your statement really says nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

To be an organism is to be a subjective reactive creature locked into its subjectivity, but through that subjectivity, yearning to understand the larger picture, the grand mystery, making incremental headway in trying to discern what the objective world is in and of itself. The revelation that all is energy is a breakthrough, one number to the greatest combination lock that ever existed. This title question, challenging the objectivity of science, is not complicated, as there is nothing objective. You are one bubble of subjectivity, the measure and the meaning of all things. All things man-made are biological extensions of his human nature, created in his outer world.

That is your subjective opinion by degree of your own foundations of argument.

There are only subjective opinions. Your statement really says nothing.

That is your subjective opinion.

[popeye1945]

That is your subjective opinion by degree of your own foundations of argument.

There are only subjective opinions. Your statement really says nothing.

That is your subjective opinion.

DUH!

[Eodnhoj7]

There are only subjective opinions. Your statement really says nothing.

That is your subjective opinion.

DUH!

So your observation of everything is merely a projection of your own patterns. What you speak of is not a truth beyond you, by degree of your claims.