You Are a Co-Creator of Reality.

In term as a human being ‘you’ have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.
From day one of breathing, eating, farting and shitting, you have been a contributor to reality-as-it-is.
With your next breath you are creating a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago].

The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.

Agree?

I thought you said that you didn’t believe in one reality?
So which reality are You co-creating?

Reality-as-it-is, I did not mention 'ONE- Reality. The question is which ONE-Reality, yours, others or the collective?

Point is the moment you believe reality-as-it-is then a Framework and System is inevitable.

There is no ONE-Reality that is independent of the human conditions. The yearning to cling to ONE-Reality is psychological.

So how many “Reality-as-it-is” are there?

The desperate, irrational attempt to deny ONE-Reality is more “psychological”.

There is no consideration of any finite number, if you insist it is infinite and interdependent with the subject.

James, you gotta have an infinite number of possible worlds. It’s not psychological, it’s philosophical.

Well that is called “subjectivity”, a close cousin to solispism.

So back to me question,
Which “Reality-as-it-is” are You personally co-creating?

You don’t “gotta have” anything. And “possible” merely means that you don’t know which is real among the many guesses. Those “possible worlds” do not exist, even in Quantum Phairyland until someone observes one. The only one that exists is the one observed. All others “collapse” (meaning that they were never actual and thus no longer possibles to guess about).

But Prism isn’t talking about quantum multiple worlds ontology. He has his own “intersubjectivity” ontology, wherein reality is whatever the consensus proclaims, much the same as the Catholics. But then at the same time, he proclaims that everyone OWNS the entire world-as-it-is" because they are “co-creating” it.

…unless they are not a part of the consensus, then I guess they are just screwed.

There’s only 1 actual world, and it’s the same world regardless of who’s looking at it or interpreting it from whatever point of view. But you do gotta have infinite possible worlds because you need them to do counterfactuals and prove that the infinite number of dumb things people say and believe are not true in the actual world.

Yeah, well. He hasn’t figured that out yet. He thinks that such is “shallow minded” because in his dark fog, it seems to simple.

It’s pretty simple. Like, there’s an ice cream cone and it’s vanilla. And that’s that. One guy looks at it and thinks it’s shit because he likes chocolate, another looks and thinks it’s amazing because he likes vanilla. Their views don’t change the fact that it’s a vanilla ice cream cone in front of them. Easy enough to explain to those 2 types. But then you get the ones who think that it isn’t a vanilla ice cream cone at all, and I don’t know what to do with them, or at least I don’t have the energy or desire to bother with it. Then there are the ones who are certain that the ice cream cone is both shit, and amazing. They may be the smart ones, in spite of their embracing of an apparent contradiction. Then you get the ones that insist that it’s shit, or that it’s amazing, but not both…those are the dangerous types who are flailing around in the world just not understanding how to separate their view of the ice cream cone from the cone itself.

Philosophy is hard man. Like an artist doesn’t think it’s hard to paint or sculpt, and a musician doesn’t think it’s hard to create music…but it is. Most people can’t do it.

I never cared for the new-age tactic of telling retarded people that they are genius, nor the “average=100” idea for intelligence tests.

Me neither.

Who said that a human being is totally independent of reality?

A stone is part of a wall and changes the shape of the wall. The stone need not think or have a mind in order to be part of the wall. If the stone could think, then the wall would be the same in spite of any thoughts.

It is not “subjectivity” but inter-subjectivity = objectivity.
Note I raised the thread re Bitcoins, i.e. the objectivity of Bitcoins is based on the intersubjective consensus of those who participate and believe in the value of Bitcoin.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193685

I have referenced the article [which I agree] ‘Solipsism is an incoherent theory’.
iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

If you insist solipsism is tenable, then you are as a philosophical realist is a solipsist.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193716

It is not a question of “You personally co-creating?”
I can’t stop you and other from co-creating reality-is and create my own personal one.
Me, you and others are co-creators of reality [is] on a dynamic basis.

The use of the term “Reality-as-it-is” [it was Phyllo’s] with “it” can be misleading in a more refine philosophical deliberation.
I will refer to reality as “is”, i.e. “Reality-is”
Note it is ‘reality-is’ not THE ONE REALITY you have been claiming.

However the moment any one state ‘Reality is X’ then that ‘X’ has to be qualified to a Framework and System.

Btw have you read Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty’ where he wrote about ‘hinges’ and ‘river beds’ and these are the necessary philosophical Framework and System that ground one cognition of what “Reality is …”

Therefore when you insist ‘Reality is One’, then that is subjected to your personal Framework and System or one that is shared with others.

How can you prove there is only “1” actual world. That is only wishful thinking from habits and customs.
My contention is the idea of “1 actual world” is merely an idea reasoned from primal mode of reasoning and it cannot be empirically proven at all.

There can be many perspectives from philosophy.

What you have presented above is merely referring to subjective values re Philosophy of Value which is prominent in Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

There are other perspectives to the above scenario to “an ice cream cone and it’s vanilla.”
Besides values and morality, there is Metaphysics, logic, epistemology, Aesthetics. Note this dilemma raised by Russell in general philosophy, i.e. perhaps there is no ice cream cone nor vanilla at all :astonished:

If I am not mistaken you claim to be a realist, i.e. philosophical realist, thus;

If so, you are claiming a human being is totally independent of reality.

Otherwise you are a philosophical anti-realist, are you?

“conceptual scheme” being the critical phrase in the quote. :-"

There is no way one can get a handle on reality-is except creating and entangling with “conceptual schemes.”
What else other than “conceptual schemes” [aka Framework and System].

It is the “conceptual schemes” as real and embedded that motivate one to create ‘reality-is.’
Theists believe God is really real [in fact is illusory] in delivering a real holy book with good and evil elements and SOME theists believe it is so real they are inspired by the real God to commit the most abominable evils and violence on non-believers and others, therefrom creating such reality-is.

So you don’t know what “objective” means either. I’m wondering if there are actually any words that you can get right.

“Objective reality” means a reality that is independent of any opinions, whether one person or all people together.

Irrelevant.

Your claim is that people participating in sharing their individual subjective opinions constitutes an actual reality. But each individual person must have their own opinion before it can be shared with anyone else. And what about having two groups of people who collectively disagree? Where is the reality in that scenario?

Sorry, but that is just dumb. If there are more than one realities, then what does “reality-is” mean? If there is only one “reality-is”, then why isn’t that one, “The One Reality”?

No. It certainly is not. The fact that there is but one reality is independent of what I think makes up that reality.

Gyahd, your blind. :confused: