Is it possible for a person to have no beliefs at all?

You are having difficulty grasping my point because you are treating this as if it's rocket science...

Why should we even delve into a subject if we are to not think everything through to its extreme?

Why even bother unless we plan to get to the very bottom?

It is important to ask the right questions too. Ask the wrong ones, and our efforts lead us off.

Yeah but you don't seem to want anyone to ask questions about your conclusions(see 'rocket science' above).

You go about defining 'right' questions from 'wrong' ones so you can stay inside your own imaginary bubble.

I do, actually. To understand what is meant by "physicality" isn't hard. I have explained what I put into the term. We don't need to negotiate this for you to be able to grasp my intended meaning. You just have to use the word as I defined it. We are (presumably) the same species, so we should be on equal footing when it comes to determining what has physicality.

Yes but you refused to give an answer as to your conclusion of 'physicality' being defined by that-which 'has' physical being as opposed to those who do not.

That is your conclusion and the end of thinking.

Let me rephrase: If we define everything that can be empirically verified as "physical", we can say that a common attribute of all things and phenomena that can be empirically verified is that they have physicality. Do you understand what I put in the word now? Can you work with it?

Now lets answer a few questions.

Are unicorns real? Many immediately say no, and that is because they mean that unicorns are not to be found in the physical universe. There is no object that has physicality and that falls into the category "unicorn".
But as fictional creatures, unicorns do exist. They have no existence in the physical universe, which is why many people say they are not real.

Are horses real? I'm pretty sure that the majority of us will say that they are.

To sum it up again, my claim is that the distinction real/not real is only truly clear when we are talking in terms of "physicality" as explained above.
As soon as we go beyond that, the term "real" becomes ambiguous and in some cases nonsensical.

One last point. When we think in these terms we see that "not real" is not the same as "non-existent". That which not real can still exist. (God, for instance. The concept certainly exists, though there is wide spread conflict regarding asserting if god is real.)

I would reply by saying that limiting your thinking to only that-which can be empirically verified is your own self-boundary.

I believe this to be the 'pitfall' of humanity in general. You only regard that which is 'important' or 'has value' to those concepts which can be empirically verified, therefore you go around trying to conjure up theories which all your empirical buddies will approve of.

Of course I know what you put into the word, that's not the point. The point is for you to think though what you have put into the word so that you may reach a more original basis. Again, you have no fundamental basis in your pre-supposed distinction for the derivative-physicality. Regardless of how you rationalize or try to get me to 'go along' with you.

I'm not addressing your post after the first paragraph, as you will see, if you are not to 'buy into' your own conclusions so much there is no need to go off on such 'tangents'.

I agree. But that is not what I am doing here. I am merely attempting define and explore the limits of a single term. We cannot hope to understand each other without common ground in some things.

Instead you take the role of teacher, judging my thinking based on my efforts to get through to you.

Well if you 'agree' then why bother trying to get me to 'go along' with you on something which is based purely on empirical 'evidence'?

Even if it is for the sake of communicating, what's the point in doing so if our fundamental basis is in-accurate? We would just be going off on an in-accurate and in-direct tangent, no?

I agree that limiting one's own thinking is not good. I do not agree that that is what I am doing.

Alright, well then why limit your thinking right now by concluding that there even is 'you' to whom which I could place the 'burden' of being one who limits his own thinking?

In other words, why not just skip right over all that 'personal' bullshit so that we might un-cover something new in the realm of thinking?

What 's rong with THAT????





David

A baby who happens to be a person by definition would mostly likely have no beliefs. So the answer is Yes.