How is this definition of "belief"?

@Cyracuz,

Ask your good friends JL and Fresco why running through and excluding "ifs" is the way you go on to prove something, I frankly am done over here !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You are the one who keeps adding the ifs. I am trying to point out one 'if' you refuse to acknowledge. That's what this is about, and yes you are done. You are fresh out of excuses.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

How would you distinguish a guess from a mistaken belief, what criteria would you use?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

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".

If you are relying on "there is a state of affairs" to make the point, Cyracuz...then you will have to do that with Fil or whoever else is interested in that wording.

I am talking about REALITY. If "there is a state of affairs" is the same as REALITY...then there is a REALITY that is objective.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

How would you distinguish a guess from a mistaken belief, what criteria would you use?

Please feel free to tell me to butt out, since you weren't addressing me Smile

, but it seems to me that at the moment you make a guess, you don't know whether it's mistaken or not, so it can't really be a belief. You're aware of your lack of knowledge, but choose an action to find out whether it works or not. That's my experience, at least.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

To assert that reality is objective is more than just asserting that there is reality.
'Objective' is not given by the assertion that reality IS.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

To assert that reality is objective is more than just asserting that there is reality.
'Objective' is not given by the assertion that reality IS.

REALITY...is whatever IS.

Whatever the true nature of REALITY actually IS...that is what it is.

If you want to contest that in some way...do so.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I do not wish to contest that.

Here is what you said:

Quote:

I am talking about REALITY. If "there is a state of affairs" is the same as REALITY...then there is a REALITY that is objective.

I am referring specifically to the part that states

Quote:

there is a REALITY that is objective.

You stated this as fact. Can you prove it?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Obviously when there is no subjective variance to the assertion that reality IS, what IS, necessarilly we arrived at an objective conclusion...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I have been staying out of this thread for the most part. It makes me feel either very old or that I'm having a stroke. A very confusing stream of ideas and counter ideas.
But I want to stress that both Frank and Cryacuz are right in their own ways.
Frank says: "I am talking about REALITY. If "there is a state of affairs" [that] is the same as REALITY...then there is a REALITY that is objective." Frank is at one point saying that WHATVER reality is, it simply IS. But then he insists that it is [ipso facto] "objective" and, I take him to mean "only objective". I habitually argue that Reality--as we perceive it (both as individuals and as species members)--experience something that is pure phenomenona, whether or not there is a (noumenal) "thing in itself" behind it. But then I often add (from my understanding of John Searle) that THAT is an objective fact. At least that is what I mean by "objective"; pretty much what Frank means by "Reality."
But then I also agree with Cryacuz that "To assert that reality is objective is more than just asserting that there is realty. 'Objective' is not given by the assertion that reality IS." That may be the most profound addition to this thread.
As infamous anti-dualitsts, I believe that Fresco and I add share what seems to be Cryacuz' rejection of Reality as being EITHER objective OR subjective: it is both depending on one's perspective and purposes of the moment.

It IS such a temptation to choose between describing Reality as either objective fact or subjective experience . As I age I come to see that they are yin and yang to each other--indispensables .

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I do not wish to contest that.

Here is what you said:

Quote:
I am talking about REALITY. If "there is a state of affairs" is the same as REALITY...then there is a REALITY that is objective.

I am referring specifically to the part that states

Quote:
there is a REALITY that is objective.

You stated this as fact. Can you prove it?

As Fil points out in the post following yours...what IS...IS.

Whatever the REALITY is...simply IS.

There is nothing subjective about it. It is purely objective.

It is definitionally so.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

It IS such a temptation to choose between describing Reality as either objective fact or subjective experience . As I age I come to see that they are yin and yang to each other--indispensables .

Yes, but in so doing they cancel each other out and appear... beyond elaboration.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I think both Frank and Fil are right when they say that we can assert that there is a reality.
Unfortunately, both seem unwilling to acknowledge that Fil did assert something more. That additional assertion made by Fil is what I have been speaking of the entire time, but Fil has not yet successfully accounted for how that assertion is a fact. A rather petty issue, perhaps, but I feel it has some relevance to the overall topic of the thread.

Quote:

Cryacuz' rejection of Reality as being EITHER objective OR subjective: it is both depending on one's perspective and purposes of the moment.

In this thread, I am merely stating that we can have no definite knowledge either way, as to whether reality is 'objective' or 'subjective'.
All we can comment on is our experience of it, and that, as you say, can be both.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank.
Can you prove that reality in no way depends on our experiencing it, in order to happen at all?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Frank, the reality of our experience, as well the so-called objective bases for it, depend for its phenomenal existence on our physical universe and our nervous and cultural systems. Can you imagine any way OUR reality--the reality we experience, research and talk about--is independent of the aforementioned bases?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Frank.
Can you prove that reality in no way depends on our experiencing it, in order to happen at all?

What IS...IS.

If you refuse to understand that...nothing will cause it to enter your understanding.

I have NEVER said that REALITY in no way depends on our experiencing it in order to happen at all.

I HAVE SAID...SEVERAL TIMES NOW...THAT if REALITY does depend on our experiencing it in order to happen at all...

...then that IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Open your mind on this, Cyracuz.

There is no getting around the fact that REALITY (WHAT IS) HAS TO BE OBJECTIVE...no matter what.

Even if you could make sense of "REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE" (which really does not make sense)...

...then the fact that REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE...would be the OBJECTIVE truth about REALITY.

But like I said...if you refuse to allow this to enter your mind...there is no way that I can think of to force it in there.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, the reality of our experience, as well the so-called objective bases for it, depend for its phenomenal existence on our physical universe and our nervous and cultural systems. Can you imagine any way OUR reality--the reality we experience, research and talk about--is independent of the aforementioned bases?

Jesus, JL...if all that you said were true...what difference would it make?

If all you said IS true...then THAT would be the OBJECTIVE REALITY.

What are you guys thinking about here.

This is definitional...a tautology.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Are you confessing, Frank, that your principal thesis is no more than a tautology?

Frank, if reality is not BOTH objective AND subjective it would not be part of OUR world. That's the difference it would make!

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Are you confessing, Frank, that your principal thesis is no more than a tautology?

I'm not CONFESSING it...I have been saying it right along.

Quote:

Frank, if reality is not BOTH objective AND subjective it would not be part of OUR world. That's the difference it would make!

REALITY is objective. What IS...IS.

Live with it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You are stating that reality is objective.

You are stating this as fact.

If this were a fact, then it would be true that if there were no humans, there would still be reality.

How can you know that Frank??

I don't care how likely it seems to you. You can not KNOW it.

What's more, Frank, you are not making a guess here.

So much for "not doing beliefs"...

2 Replies

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know