First of all, thank you for taking the time to write such an in-depth answer! I appreciate it!

> Unverified knowledge is belief. 

I think we use belief differently. For me anything that we believe is a belief, so I use the word more broadly. For me, when I say that I believe the Earth is round, it's still a belief, it's just a very well-substantiated one. But I can use idea instead and of belief and my view gels pretty well with the model you are presenting.

Describing knowledge as a system of well-substantiated ~~beliefs~~ ideas does make sense to me, that's a very good and practical model for it. I think I'll "keep" it ;)

>  I don't adhere to your definition of objective.

That is very surprising to me :P I'm left with the impression that we actually use the word quite similarly, so even after reading your older post on the topic and subjectivity and objectivity, I'm having a hard time seeing a real difference or anything to really object to in your usage. We might have a bit different ideas for some of the implications, but a true definitional difference alludes me.

> Actions are real. They are objective. What they do is objective. The harm they create is objective.

This part I agree with 100%.

> Subjective morality is fake false understanding of how morality works as a representation and reflection of our behavior. 

This is where our positions start to diverge. I don't think morality can be viewed as intrinsically objective much like ethically right and wrong are in my opinion not intrinsically objective.

Let me illustrate that with an example. I personally believe that eating animals is morally wrong while others disagree for a variety of reasons some of which would be internally consistent and even reasonable. If morality was truly objective, we should have an objective way of determining what is right or wrong in the situation.

I think morality is something that is based on some standards and values. It generally revolves around not causing harm to others, a concept that I've seen formulated as well-being, which I think is a nice way to put it. But there are different standards that are possible. Somebody that sees eating animals as a morally acceptable act, has the well-being of humans as the standard, while I prefer to expand it to all conscious beings. A more radical difference in moral standards would be people that would say that moral is what their religion defines as moral. So the standards by which we judge what is right and wrong and not really set in stone and are subject to subjective evaluation and judgment based on personal values and views about the world.

Having said that, I wouldn't go as far as to say that objective morality is not impossible. After we have agreed on the standards for morality, we could indeed apply the standards in an objective way and we can start determining if an act is moral or immoral according to the standards that we have put forward.

This is very much what happens with definitions too. Deciding on a definition is a subjective act. As words are not magic, we supposedly somehow come to an agreement on a particular definition for a particular word. Defining it has some intrinsic subjectivity, but after we have defined it in whatever way we have, we then can supposedly have an objective standard of what falls in and out of that defined category.

So I'd say we can indeed have somewhat objective morality, but only after we have agreed on the standards.

> Indeed, we must always be ready to revise something if better reflections with reality emerge

Well, that's why I'm reluctant to talk about something that is true with absolute certainty as there is always a chance for a hidden factor or a delusion to be the culprit of our supposed understanding. It's in a way accepting solipsism. But that's my "theoretical" approach to this if you will. While absolute certainty about anything might be something that I would be reluctant to postulate theoretically, I would say that in practice, we can indeed demonstrate things beyond any reasonable doubt and we can view them as facts. It's like saying that 100% perfection is impossible, but that 99.999% is enough for all practical purposes. The last bit of doubt is reserved for taking into account the ever present possibility of what you mentioned here.

> Still the senses are all we have, those are the instruments we must trust. 

Yep, a crucial point indeed. The problem with solipsism is that it doesn't offer anything to replace our senses while reality (real, imagined, hallucinated, or simulated) forces us to act and react to it. And we are much better off, basing the reasoning for our actions in it.

> But, if you mean it's an approximation like the %5 now, and it's not "100%" of all knowledge or truth about something in reality... ok. You don't need to, nor can likely have, 100% absolute knowledge of everything about something.

Yes, this is more or less what I mean.

> Anyways, I respect you, your psyche-mind, and I rarely take the time to respond in depth as I have been. 

Yes, I appreciate that a lot! It's been a very interesting conversation for me and I'd like to assure you that all the time you've put into those replies has not been wasted as you've indeed nudged me to think about some aspects of my positions that I hadn't really considered before and that has been inspiring.

>  If you have more issues about this, I'll try to make posts next time. Doing things one-on-one takes up a lot of time with fewer people befitting from it :P I like to do one-to-many information presentation.

That would be great. I agree presenting complex ideas in the comments is not the most efficient way to go and actually in a way ignores part of your audience here. If you end up making a post at least in part inspired by a conversation we have had, that would be an honor :)