How is this definition of "belief"?

@Cyracuz,

Let's just take this part of what you wrote here, Cyracuz:

Quote:

If that is the case, reality is not objective. In that case, reality is not anything unless subjectively experienced.

Are you truly not able to see that if REALITY "is not anything unless subjectively experienced"...

...THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH ABOUT REALITY.

If that actually is what IS...that IS the objective truth about REALITY. If that actually is what IS...REALITY is objectively nothing unless subjectively experienced.

There is no way REALITY (what IS) can possibly be anything but what it IS.

Repeat that until it finally penetrates.

Or continue to present objective scenarios for REALITY...and erroneously suggest they are subjective.

ASIDE: I never realized you think so highly of humans. They may be what you apparently suppose them to be...but they may be specks of nothing...of absolutely no consequence to REALITY at all.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Reality is objective, is the simple form of, reality is reality is objective !
Reality by definition MUST be objective, descriptions of reality do not !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Reality is objective, is the simple form of, reality is reality is objective !
Reality by definition MUST be objective, descriptions of reality do not !

AMEN!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Are you truly not able to see that if REALITY "is not anything unless subjectively experienced"...

...THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH ABOUT REALITY.

You and Fil have one thing in common. You will both say anything to avoid admitting you made a mistake.

I may agree that "reality is" is an objective truth about reality.

But that is not the same as saying "reality is objective".

That is not an objective truth about reality. It is a subjective assumption about reality.

Were you not so biased by your compulsion to deny your mistake, you would see this.
You saw it earlier, before you had made an assertion you had to stick with. That's when you started raping language.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Here it is Frank, what you said earlier:

http://able2know.org/topic/214762-39#post-5347778

Quote:

Are you suggesting that I have asserted that there is a state of affairs independent of perception? If I did...I WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

The problem is that stating that "reality is objective" means precisely that "reality is independent of perception". That is what "objective" means.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

If "reality" is dependent of perception, then necessarily such reality is itself independent of perception and objectively true ! (the contradiction is intended to remit "reality" to Reality)

Equally:

As minds could not be the creator of minds (as minds did not yet exist) a reality constituted exclusively of minds is itself an objective fact ! (a reality of minds was not "observed"/created by minds)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, you have murdered your own credibility.

Quote:

If "reality" is dependent of perception, then necessarily such reality is itself independent of perception

Let me see.... you are saying... that

If reality is dependent on perception...

...that means it is independent of perception???

There is a saying I heard once, and I think I shall take the advice it offers:
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

I am not going to let you drag me down to your conceptual level, and I am not going to let you mindfuck me into taking this crap seriously.

Here it is again, what you just said:

Quote:

... if reality is dependent on perception, then necessarily such reality is independent of perception....

That's what you said. Bwahahahahaha...

1 Reply

I have yet to appreciate the value of tautology. I don't see that they give us new information. Two plus two necessarily equals four only in the sense that four also equals two plus two. They are no more than different ways of saying the same thing (the same would apply to 3+1=4 and 4=1+3). What am I missing?
Is Frank claiming "tautological truth" for his conclusion simply because he DEDUCES it from his premise? Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

No Cyr...I won't let you call me an idiot...I am showing what an idiot you are by believing there is a reality that needs to be observed to be real ITS a CONTRADICTION in terms ! In fact I am PROVING the opposite for how many pages now in this thread ?
I was refraining from ad hominem but you just provided me a motive, you entire claim is ABSURDLY STUPID !

I can prove I said just this from going back 3 or 4 pages down the road where I explained how such view is contradictory. I will get a link to the post soon.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

You are not missing anything.
Fil and Frank are claiming that the assertion "reality is objective" is a tautology, and they have proceeded to make all sorts of outrageous claims towards that end.

Frank doesn't seem to realize that 'objectivity' is something he deduces from his premise that "reality is". It seems he thinks it is stated by the tautology itself, which it is, of course, not. Our ability to question either way, and our inability to arrive at a conclusion, is proof enough of that.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Here it is:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
But I didn't say it was the case there is no reality outside human perception...it may be the case human perception is a part of what reality is, it needs not be complete to be included in the set of what is real...

You said that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know about it.
If it is the case that the only state of affairs is the one we perceive, it cannot be true that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know about it.

Quote:
Whatever you know believe or experience still is a part of reality all the same.

I agree. But that doesn't mean there is a reality if there is no one to know or believe or experience.
It may be that "something that can know about it" is a condition of reality happening.
This means that your assertion is a belief, not a fact. Even if it's true, which it might very well be.

When I'm saying it doesn't matter what we know I am not going either way I am just saying it doesn't matter if we do know or if we do not know as the real is the real...

If everything about reality results of a mind thinking, then thinking is not creating reality (we got to rip off "creating" out of the thinking) but rather portraying it, unfolding it inside space time...its like all the objects of your thinking are potentially real, already timeless potential forms, that would come about (materialize) through mind thinking on them...even if so still in good truth minds would not be creating reality as reality would include that platonic realm of mathematical and geometrical potential...in that case what you would have outside time is an ensemble of timeless phenomena, all of them, minds themselves and other geometric forms, or algorithms, on which minds inside time would materialize those forms, a major function in the matrix concerning minds usefulness...thus the act of "thinking" would be a function for materializing information and not to create the true abstract reality out of time and space...in this sense knowing, would be itself an unfolding activity inside time, would be part of that abstract realm, a timeless reality per se...there, we back to square one, there are no minds making reality even if somewhat we came to the conclusion that it seams minds might be making reality...

As I have said before:

On Mind reality:
...if reality was created by minds who created the mind/s as minds are themselves the real ? No one ? Then minds themselves couldn't be real as no mind consciousness or whatever like it could create them...if minds were created by other things which not minds, then minds are not the creator of reality...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. You just said:

Quote:

If "reality" is dependent of perception, then necessarily such reality is itself independent of perception

You said that! In all seriousness you said that!
And you still want me to take you seriously?
Laughing

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION !!!

If it is the case that reality needs be observed/created by minds, IF, then who observed minds themselves ?

THIS SINGLE SENTENCE TRASHES BASHES AND CIRCLES AROUND YOUR SUPPOSITION !

If no conscience could observe/create a mind because mind did not existed then reality IS NOT CREATED BY MINDS !!!

the "IF a mind created reality"... hypothesis is TRASHED !

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

No I remarked how YOUR OWN HYPOTHESIS IS STUPID !!! I just provided a link with a quote from myself to prove what I am saying is no coincidence the issue was addressed a great deal of pages earlier on, from where the link points at !

0 Replies

If you bypass and don't answer the question 2 posts above you will be proving you are TROLLING !

Question was:

If it is the case that reality needs be observed/created by minds, IF, then who observed minds themselves ?

I find extremely dumb that you point at me in your own hypothesis..I peak your on assumption to show the contradiction clown !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I have not made any hypothesis. I have merely pointed out, extensively, that certain things you consider facts are actually unknowable.

Quote:

If it is the case that reality needs be observed/created by minds, IF, then who observed minds themselves ?

Really? You are down to this now? You are aware that our inability to answer a question doesn't prove anything in any way about anything, right?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Oh, and you said that if reality is subjective, then that proves that reality is objective, which is just an outrageously stupid thing to say.

What do you have to say about that assertion?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I said I PEAKED your OWN ASSUMPTION that reality is subjective and SHOW its self contradictory I PROVED I ALREADY ADDRESSES IT WELL BEFORE IN THE THREAD WITH A QUOTE AND A LINK. the ASSUMPTION IS YOURS ASSHOLE !

ITS NOT UNKNOWABLE WHEN NO LESS THEN A SOUND PROOF IS IN THE TABLE !

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Are you truly not able to see that if REALITY "is not anything unless subjectively experienced"...

...THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH ABOUT REALITY.

That might be, Frank.

But Frank,
there is a difference between stating that "reality is objective" is a fact, or a tautology...

...and stating that "reality is" is an objective fact about reality.

Do you see the difference?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I have not assumed anything Fil. I have pointed out that you are mistaking some of your assumptions as facts. That is all I have been doing.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know