How is this definition of "belief"?

read my last post it was edited !

The sentence: "I don't know nothing about Dogs", is perfectly correct !
Perfectly distinct from "I don't know Dogs" !
The first sentence admits the existence of Dogs but claims no other information.
The second sentence does not acknowledge "Dogs" refers to anything !

Yes you did!
That is what "no matter what we can know about it" means.



If is has been assumed it is an assumption not a fact.

I think understanding this may be beyond you, Fil. There is ample information now to understand the point I am making.
Notice how Frank is all silent. He knows I'm right.
But you, you are prepared to say just about anything to avoid admitting you made a mistake. That's rather pathetic, and it discredits you. Why would you want that??

C'mon, Cyracuz. If our experiencing IS a vital part in making it happen at all...THEN THAT IS WHAT IS.

No matter how you phrase it...and no matter any part of it...WHAT IS...IS.

Your understanding is flawed.
I can say "I don't know nothing about Fil". That is true. I know something about you. But the double negative (don't know nothing) is a cultural idiom. It means "don't know anything".

I can also say "I don't know Fil". That is true also. We have never met. Even though I know some things about you, I don't know you.
It is also clear that the second sentence, (I don't know Fil) referes to something quite specific.

Agreed.

But that is not what Fil has asserted.

If our experiencing IS a vital part in making it happen at all, then that is indeed what reality is.

Our knowing might be a vital part, and it might not be a vital part. If it IS a vital part, then it is not true that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know.
If it IS NOT a vital part, it is true that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know.
But we can not know either way.

If Fil had said simply "there is a state of affairs" we would have no quarrel. But adding that last part asserts something more. It asserts that we are irrelevant to there being a state of affairs. That is unknowable. I seem to recall you admitting this earlier on, when the wording Fil used was "no matter what we can tell about it", not "know".

I can assure on my family's health from the beginning my intention when I wrote no matter what we can tell about it was a thing within a thing, that is to say I know it exists but we might or might not describe it. I still think the sentencing is correct and don't think you have show the opposite I already explain why some posts ago...while imaginary objects can be specified as concepts that may or may not refer you cannot do the same with reality because a concept of reality immediately becomes reality whether you grasp what I am saying or not is not my problem...I can guarantee you this is not being deliberately dense with you or not wanting to concede a point...I deliberately wrote that sentence with that form with a purpose in mind !

In fact the whole sub intended idea is quite easy to get and easy to prove to anyone: As soon as you go on to question the smallest concept of reality, say X, you get to be confronted with the need of a supporting reality for your concept to exist...you need to describe nothing else other then X. For X to be X when it concerns to reality knowing just X is enough !

If I say I know nothing about X I am intending to mean I know nothing other then X is X. If I say I don't know X I am intending to say I don't know if X exists which can be applied to all other objects in the world although in this particular case cannot be applied to reality because an imaginary concept still could be reality.

On another account I have already provided sufficient reason to say that reality is independent from minds even if reality is composed exclusively of minds...

As minds cannot be the justification of minds, that is to mean, as a mind cannot be the creator of mind itself if reality was a mind then the reality of mind was not created by a mind. Thus minds are not causing the reality of mind ! AT best the reality that there are minds is uncreated no observer was needed for the first mind to be a mind therefore the reality of minds being at large, as a Universal, could not be created by a mind as minds did not exist yet...If a first mind was all that was in the beginning and such mind was not created/observed...then quite OBVIOUSLY the reality of minds was not created by a mind...which in turns means without any shred of a doubt the first reality of minds if minds were the case to be the first reality there is, WAS NOT created by a mind...therefore MINDS ARE NOT THE CREATORS OF A REALITY !!!

Reality is a ultimate place holder by definition, we don't need to tell a jot about it other then to acknowledge reality is reality...this is NOT A GUESS its a FACT !!!

PS- Every time I think an entire movement went down a dead road in Philosophy it gives me the shivers...any untrained thinking person like me can get to this conclusion about minds being the ultimate reality being nonsense...how the F*** would minds create reality without themselves being already a reality which was not created by any mind ?
MINDS are not creating any reality ! Its Bullshit its nonsense and its dumb to think otherwise !

Further more on Occam's razor one could reason:

If the all of reality was a single mind and that mind was not created by another mind as minds did not exist yet why should any subsequent mind create anything once the archetype could not create itself...its needlessly complicated to think there would be 2 different kinds of mind being a mind.

At best as is true we can say minds imagine, minds are editors playing with real concepts but they are not the creators of concepts...from where we can proceed to say that minds are not the ultimate cause as also to conclude that minds are not free in the sense that they are not bringing stuff about from themselves wanting alone...(if they couldn't do it with themselves being why should they do it with anything else ?) REALITY is ABSTRACT ! IT IS !

Fil.
How many times do i have to say it?
KNOWING X IS NOT THE ISSUE!
The issue is that you asserted something about the nature of X that is fundamentally unknowable.

Everything you have been ranting on about for the last pages is true if the assertion in question is "there is a state of reality".

But that is not what you said. You said something more.

If you don't have the accuracy to understand that your assertion means more than just "there is X", there is just no way I can explain it to you.

I understand what you intended it to mean.
It does mean that.
But it also means what I am saying.
You cannot ignore that part of the meaning just because it suits you. Your assertion is an assumption.

If you continue your rant about X, it will prove me right.

You are free to believe that. But you cannot know it.



According to your beliefs. You cannot know this. If you still persist in saying that you do, we have conclusive evidence that you are delusional.

Lets go step by step Cyr:

Is mind a reality ? Answer yes or no please.

I don't know the answer to that question. "Yes" or "no" would both be assumptions.

Now you. Answer your own question please.

...that cop out wont help as if it is not then the debate is closed anyway...and if yes you just need to read back to get my point.

It is not a cop out to say that either yes or no would be an assumption.

It is the very heart of the matter we are discussing.

The cop out is not accept the same challenge you just gave me.

I'll indulge in guessing, since you want me to.

"Is mind a reality?"

I believe that it is. Yes.

Now you, say what you think. Then say if you think it's a fact or an assumption.

No Cyr...if you didn't get my last post then it is pointless to proceed...the problem cannot be raised if mind is not a reality so the discussion is closed either if mind is a reality is a wrong belief as if mind is a reality is a fact.

This is simply not true.
The question cannot be raised if there is not reality. This goes for any question. That is why it is completely redundant to state it at all.

If you want to state a fact, state "there is something going on". I'll agree that this is true.
Descartes thought his 'cogito ergo sum' was assumption free. Saying 'mind is reality' is no different from what he said, and Nietzsche's objection to his statement holds for yours. How can Descartes know that this 'I' is really what thinks? How can you know that this 'mind' is relevant to anything but your reality? Since you can never have an understanding that is not the understanding of your mind, you can never know this.

It has never been conclusively proven that each individual has it's own mind. The concept of 'mind' is an assumption. An extremely functional assumption that I depend on, but still an assumption.

Again you don't understand its amazing how many wrong assumption you make about what I am saying !

I asked you if mind is a reality not if mind is the whole reality...in both cases and I've gone directly to the worst case scenario, if mind is not a reality then it does not exist, if mind is part of a reality then mind is not the creator of reality and if mind is the only reality then mind could not create itself thus still it is not the creator of reality ! There is not 1 inch of fault in this reasoning and I am going to stop right now as it seams absolutely pointless to go on, either you get it or you don't !
Again I appreciate your input and willingness to debate ad nausea but enough is enough, have a nice day !

Indeed. Believe what you want.

I am not objecting to your reasoning. I am saying that it is based on an assumption.
IF mind is part of a reality.... IF mind is the only reality... IF mind is not a reality....
All these IFs, and you are talking about facts?
You're like a parrot...