@Syamsu Can you share with us that thing you have with the two columns, and on one side is things like "subjective", "choice", "opinion", "creator", etc, and the other side has things like "objective", "no choice", "fact", "creation", etc? I think that would really clear things up for everyone.

Perhaps by a 1 to 1 basis in the mind meaning said proposed fact ie. 'the water is hot' corresponds to one or more things that can be proven. The water is 150 degrees farenheit. Steam is beginning to rise from the water. I stick my hand in it for more than a few seconds it will be very uncomfortable. Etc? The statement 'the water is hot' is therefore a fact not an opinion. Whereas 'the water is too hot' or 'not hot enough' may be the opposite.

Hm?

They're gonna want a bit more than that, friend. I know I did.

Pragmatically speaking I've chosen to, for sake of debate including all, assign the 'Creator' to be one of the following possibilities, meaning there is no other possibility than the following two. Either as an entity, as we believe. Or as the process of millions of years of random, meaningless evolution. It has to be one of these and so use of the word 'Creator' can now be used in any argument regardless of the views of its audience.

No, creator is here defined, as what did the job of making the choice turn out A instead of B. Emotions are in this category of the creator. Emotions are more commonly referred to than God is.

Also, this conceptual scheme states specifically that any question about the identity of a creator must be answered with a chosen opinion. So choosing the opinion God did not create the universe, is perfectly valid, according to this conceptual scheme. It is totally wrong interpretation that this scheme requires belief in God.

Ah, so cause and effect? The creator of an effect is the cause and its effect is the creation. Sounds about right.

Except that cause and effect is the logic of being forced, while a creator chooses in freedom.

So to create or not to create? If this creator does create is it not its effect? If it doesnt create isn't this an effect (or lack of, yet still able to be referenced say if an architect does not create a dam he was supposed to and a low lying town becomes flooded) this effect or creation as well?

It seems sensible for the sake of clarity to reserve cause and effect, for things being forced.

If a cause is forced is it not merely an effect of a greater cause? Perhaps that's your point.

What, in a sentence or two (or more, this is complex or at least unclear to me- not including examples), is a (or the) creator? What is the creation?

Generally for people creating, only the agency of people's choices, their emotions, would be the creator, and the result of the choices would be the creation.

Name a general situation where a person hasn't been drastically influenced by their environment ie. other people. So who could say who's creation it really belongs to?

Not really the point here. The point is that all opinions are in reference to the agency of a choice. Personal opinion is an inherently creationist concept.

If it helps clear things up, I’m pretty sure Syamsu means more or less “preference” when he says “opinion”. This “fact-opinion” divide is thus basically the fact-value divide.

↪A Seagull Why would that be? You have a model of the moon, and then there is the actual moon itself. — Syamsu

The 'actual moon itself' only exists as part of the model.

The better way is to first comprehend common discourse. It contains what you say is true in daily life. Then from that position, you can bargain towards a new position. Because what you are saying seems to be unrelated to common discourse, contrived from nothing.

Opinion is the proper straightforward word.

And it's not some kind of innocent accident that people are clueless about emotions, choosing. Choosing you say, your honor? I made choices? I don't know what it means judge. People have emotions? Yes, another supercomplicated issue that I don't understand the basics about. My opinions you say, on what is good and loving. That word does not sound quite right to me, "opinion". Preference maybe, or maybe something else. It's all so complicated.

Well, you cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of for instance "fear". Which is in category 1, the creator category. — Syamsu

So fear is a fact or not? I know for a fact that I have been in fear of many things in my life(scared shitless sometimes), would that serve as a model? Where can I download a copy of the table containing the categories you are talking about?

You can make a painting to express what fear is, but it's not a model. — Syamsu

So what exactly would serve as a model for a fact?

And as there doesn't seem to be any other categories besides creator and creation, it is proven that facts are only about creations. — Syamsu

Please gives us a link to this proof. They have to be somewhere right?

But why don't you present a fact which is not about a creation. — Syamsu

I don't want to interfere with the presentation of your hypothesis, theory, conjecture or whatever you want to call it. It would just muddy the waters.

And I have not made any bloody stupid comments that need to be defended, yet.

Perhaps by a 1 to 1 basis in the mind meaning said proposed fact ie. 'the water is hot' corresponds to one or more things that can be proven. The water is 150 degrees farenheit. Steam is beginning to rise from the water. I stick my hand in it for more than a few seconds it will be very uncomfortable. Etc? The statement 'the water is hot' is therefore a fact not an opinion. Whereas 'the water is too hot' or 'not hot enough' may be the opposite. — Outlander

So why the hell does he not just say that instead of blathering on about creation and creators?

Fear is not a fact, it is your opinion that you were frightened. A good clue as to that it is an opinion, is all the variety in expression of fear. Screaming, cowering, and so on. Wide variety. There is no monotone factual statement of fear existing in the brain. The variety shows that it operates with free will. Because with choosing, you have alternative futures available, and you choose one, choose another, and you get variety.

The categories are at the bottom of the original post. All your questions are already answered in the original post.

It is simply the truth of how it works, that opinions are in reference to a creator, and facts are in reference to a creation.

Fear is not a fact, it is your opinion that you were frightened. — Syamsu

Picture if you will this guy, 2 meters tall, 170 kilos, arm spread of almost 2 meters, each arm of which is thicker than most people's leg. He has long shitty looking hair and beard and a big scar running from his waist up to his cheek. He is running straight at you with a bloody big machete screaming " you're gonna die mother fucker".

The substance of what makes a choice is called "spiritual". — Syamsu

And fear is then just your spiritual choice and you can change it if you want. Yeah, OK.

It is simply the truth of how it works, that opinions are in reference to a creator — Syamsu

An opinion might be, in the sense that someone created it by putting certain groups of facts together and creating an opinion. But, by adding the facts they either come out as an opinion or a fact. That might be blamed on illogical thinking or ignorance, not necessarily on truth value.

But does not one who creates make the creation, is that not what creators are for.
So according to your reasoning there is little difference between the two,

Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence — Syamsu

Creation - implies a creator, which you say is the maker of opinions

chosen - implies subjectivity, definitely not effective as fact proving

material - implies that facts can only be "material things" or about them maybe, where as most if not all facts are inmaterial because facts are language.

Existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence - is maybe circular reasoning or redundant or ad infinitum because you are saying that it is a fact because other facts make it so and they are facts because other facts make them so and so on into infinity.

But apart from all of this, you still have not addressed the earlier post I made properly.

Here you seem to be stating that all facts are about creations, could you please verify that this is so.

Creation would mean that things are made by someone/thing, what proof verifiable facts do you have that any facts were created by anything/one? — Sir2u

All your questions are answered in the original post, which you still have not read.

When you were frightened, you might have yelled, "AAAAAAAH". To yell aaaaah, basically is the same as saying I am afraid. Do you insist aaaaaaah is fact, as you insist fear is fact?

Consider the basic logic.
There are alternative futures A and B available, A is made the present, meaning A is chosen.

Then there is the question "what was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?

Now you are basically saying that this question must be answered by gathering evidence in order to establish a fact of what it was, while I am saying the question must be answered by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on what it was.

Say it was in fact X which made the choice turn out A. Then X being a definite factual thing, X forced A, and the choice could not have turned out B. So you get a logic error of contradiction between B being possihle and impossible.

But if you just express a personal opinion fear made the decision turn out A. Then fear being a subjective thing, then you have posited no definite factual thing forcing the result A. No logic error, it works.

Also, you simply provide no room for subjectivity at all. You make everything including beauty, factual.

Also, it is a bit odd to say language is material, as I do say, but actually for newspaper writers, they do refer to articles they write as material. Have you got any material on this person, as meanng have you got any written articles about this person.