How is this definition of "belief"?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

the point is that Reality is immediately know for what it is once any agent inside reality needs reality to question whatever about reality

I disagree. From this we can conclude that there is reality. But we can only assert that it is. Not what it is.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

It is implied in your assertion.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Show it ! Don't say its there without proving go word by word in the sentence n prove it ! Relate the terms.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Who is asserting what it is ??? Are you out of your mind ? I am saying the opposite. Saying that Reality is real doesn't ad 1 bit of information to it.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Show it !

I have been showing it for the last five pages.

You said "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it" is a fact.

So then tell me how you can assert that there is a state of affairs if you can know nothing about it? You said NO MATTER WHAT, so in order to be called a fact, your assertion must account for this. It's as simple as that.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Show it !

I have been showing it for the last five pages.

You said "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it" is a fact.

So then tell me how you can assert that there is a state of affairs if you can know nothing about it? You said NO MATTER WHAT, so in order to be called a fact, your assertion must account for this. It's as simple as that.

No Cyr this is not a proof this is an opinion...in a proof you go step by step in the sentence with subject n predicate n show it.

I didn't said I can know nothing about it, I said I don't need to know what is reality other then reality is real.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

So you still say that

"there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it"

is a fact?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yes !

There is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it.
As distinct from:
There is a state of affairs no matter if we can know about it.

What, does not question reality being real, rather asks what about it, so naturally follows we don't need to know any more then reality is real for reality to be real.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

What if what we can know about it it is nothing?

You said no matter what. That means you must account for this, or admit that the assertion is not a fact.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

What if what we can know about it it is nothing?

You said no matter what. That means you must account for this, or admit that the assertion is not a fact.

If what you can know about reality is nothing, then in the least you know that reality is reality, once the question clearly asks what we can know about REALITY...it is in the question, in the subject, when you say "about reality" the very assumption of reality...otherwise the question would not have a subject !!! That X is X does not explain what X is.

Again as explained a thousand times before you cannot question reality without A reality !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

If what you can know about reality is nothing, then in the least you know that reality is reality

Then you do not know nothing. You know something.

You still miss the point.

"There is a state of affairs" is fine. That is what you are ranting on about. But I get that. Completely.

But
When you tag on that last bit it says something more. It says that reality is independent of us knowing anything about it. That is an assumption. It might be true. Personally, I think it is. But we do not know.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

That X is X does not explain what X is. You still don't know a jot about X other then X is X therefore in the simplest form:

There is a state of affairs X ! (whatever you can know ABOUT X, zero or everything, is irrelevant so long you know X is X.)

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Our knowing about it or understanding it...has absolutely nothing to do with it being...

I hope you realize that you cannot know this. I realize that you haven't claimed to be able to know it. I'm just making sure.

I know it with absolute certainty. It a tautology. It cannot be wrong.

What IS...IS.

Quote:

If "the thing that exists" is that "we must be involved in its being"...then that is what IS...even if we do not understand or realize that we are involved.

Fair enough. But then Fil's assertion that reality is "no matter what we might know about it" is an assumption, and a wrong one at that. [/quote]

I won't get into that since I did not follow that conversation in its entirety. (It would be a miracle if anyone other than you two did.)

Quote:

We simply cannot prove that reality will occur without us, for the simple reason that doing so would require us not to exist.

Not sure what that means, but my first reply is where I stand.

1 Reply

When is this goddam rain gonna stop?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

At first I thought you were just being willfully dense because you knew you'd made a mistake and didn't want to admit it.
But now I suspect that you simply don't possess the mental accuracy to perceive the distinction I am making.
I shall not fault you for it. It's been fun, but you have proven that you can't distinguish a belief from a fact, which I find rather discrediting towards you. Sorry.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

A different situation entirely is not knowing about X in any way, not even that there is X in which case you cannot question X.

When we talk about imaginary objects not existing, we are not being entirely objective as imaginary objects exist as concepts and concepts are REAL concepts, that is to say, imaginary objects are in the least real imaginary objects, thus a part of reality...questioning reality immediately confront us with this problem, because we refer to it in the question, we have assumed it. Thus we don't need to know anything more other then there is a X so that there is a reality is proven.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

You are not making any distinction Cyr...

So it comes clear no one claim this:

Quote:

We simply cannot prove that reality will occur without us, for the simple reason that doing so would require us not to exist.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What IS...IS.

Sure. But that isn't what you were asserting.

Since the only thing we can experience is what we know and understand about reality, we cannot know for a fact that our experiencing it isn't a vital part in making it happen at all.
It is not a tautology.

"What is, is" is a tautology. Saying that it IS regardless of what we KNOW is an assumption.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

"What is, is" is a tautology. Saying that it IS regardless of what we KNOW is an assumption.

No one said regardless of what we know...if you know nothing you don't make questions, what has been said was regardless of what we know about IT...IT is assumed ! We may not know a jot about IT other then IT is IT !
Different from saying regardless we know IT !!!!

About It asks for a description of IT but assumes IT
...regardless that we know it directly refers to the existence of IT

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You are apparently not aware of which claims you yourself are making. You are the one who tries to obscure the distinction between an assumption and a fact. There's no point in saying anymore when it is clear that you haven't understood what I've said up until now.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know