How is this definition of "belief"?

Cyracuz...your argument has become an absudity.

REALITY IS...WHAT IS.

That is what REALITY is...it IS WHAT IS.

Whatever it IS...it IS.

If REALITY reality has the mind of humans involved or if the minds of humans are indispensible to REALITY...

...THAT IS WHAT IS.

There is no way REALITY can be subjective...becuase IT IS WHAT IS.

Now you apparently will not see that for whatever reason...and you have to live with that.

Answer the QUESTION !

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

You do not see the difference then, I take it.

Put your pecker away Fil. I won't let you try to mindfuck me anymore.
Own up to the ridiculous claims you are blatantly making, and perhaps I will take you seriously again.

Answer the QUESTION !

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

ARE YOU AFRAID ?

yes, oh mighty keyboard warrior. i am afraid of your immense intellect and your impressive erection.

The CLAIM IS YOURS I took it n show how absurd it was ! Can you get at least that, or do you think for a minute people don't know that ? Do you really are so stupid that you think people don't realise the assumption I took came from you ? If reality is subjective to minds is your hypothesis not mine you have a bunch load of posts about it behind you documenting it !

...Frank has being saying exactly the same in case you didn't noticed that either...he is not saying reality is subjective to minds he is showing how YOUR thesis is contradictory !

You were confronted with it in that question and as you don't answer I assume you have realized by now you lost ! It is proven reality IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE !

I see that REALITY CANNOT be subjective.

Whatever the REALITY is...that is what it is.

You seem to want to play word games and think somehow that will change things.

Hey...go for it.

This thread should have been closed 20 pages or so ago...it has been killed by an overdoses of stupidity...people are not mindfucking you Cyr you are mindfucked !

Fil has suggested I contribute to this thread which seems to have got bogged down in semantics.
I can only suggest that we need to refer to Wittgenstein regarding the usage of words like "belief" and "reality" for there can no arbiter of their semantic status other than social context. The words "subjective" and "objective" reference a naive view of "reality" having an "independent" existence and course. To deny this is to fail to understand Wittgenstein's departure from logical positivism and "representationalist" views of language.
His net import was iconoclastic with respect to "analytical philosophy", and to re-position "philosophy" as "therapy" with respect to traditional "problems" and thereby dissipate them.
My own leanings have been stated many times as "reality being a social construction", the understanding of which relies on a picture of nested systems undergoing mutually related transitional states. But I can make no claim to "the reality" of such a picture....I can only appeal to its superior utility or functionality in our epistemological understanding relative to alternative usage of naive "external reality" picture.
Note that the criteria of utility and functionality (together with simplicity and elegance) have become the norm at the frontiers of science, NOT statements about a nebulous "reality", whose absolutist status is left to the speculations of the religious. The fact that everyday social transactions are inevitably steeped in simplistic views of "reality" is the major impediment to understanding what is going on at the epistemological cliff face.

Frank is is evident it cannot be subjective, I never doubt you knew that...we were just taking his own premiss and trying to make him see it all along the thread and we went with it for the sake of making him arrive to that conclusion by himself but he is to proud or to dumb to admit he was wrong...probably both. Rhetoric it is a very old technique you let slide the wrong assumption and make evidence of the mistake so the person assuming comes to see the error through the questions you pose !

Thank you Fresco I appreciate you took the time to step in and bring your contribution to the thread.

I have made a clear distinction between 2 things:

Reality being reality
A description of reality (itself a part of reality)

To my view it is without a doubt that the first must be Objective.
But I have no claims about the second...in fact it seams more plausible that we will never be able to describe reality in its full extension. We very probably may only have a subjective contribution on how we perceive our interaction with it.

Fil, what are we talking about, if not an idea in our subjective world? This reminds me of Kant's distinction between appearance (phenomena) and reality (noumena). I have been arging that there is an objective reality behind our experience, that the subjective character of experience has objective foundations. But that is only a way to talk about it. In reality the distinction is ours; "subjective" and "objective" refer to and comprise a unitary relationship between co-emerging "aspects" rather than ontologically distinct realities. Can we really even imagine one without the other (like up without down)? Very frankly, I find this very difficult to discuss and would appreciate the help of anyone who has a sense of what I am trying to articulate.

Its easy to explain JL think of sets and sub sets...
Subjectivity is indeed a part of reality we ourselves the best proof that subjectivity exists...nothing wrong there...it is all to evident that we ourselves are subjective beings we probably can't never give an account of reality which is objective...that was not the point in this all discussion...
To say that reality as a whole in itself is an object is to say that reality is what is and not something else, which would be absurd....we don't go on saying reality it is not reality do we ? We are saying that reality is what is the case and that says nothing informs nothing about reality...it is not an epistemic claim...therefore there is no contradiction with claims that we may never be able to describe what reality is when we say that reality it is objectively real !

I suggest that the reason people have "difficulty" with such an analysis can be found in Derrida's illustration of the dynamics of semantic polarities like "subjective-objective". According to him, such polarities are merely postures which necessarily entail each other ( see aporia ). Nor are the semantics of any piece of text (such as one's post) "fixed" since, unlike absolutist claims for eternity of Holy Writ, meaning is a function of the shifting context in which a text comes to be read.

Once again, this is in the spirit of philosophical iconoclasm and might imply we should observe a Wittgensteinian "silence" rather to continue indulging in Geschwätz !

By the way Fresco what would you make of the reasonable question that:

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

Thanks, Fresco: that is helpful and grounds for us to dr0p the thread.
Unless, of course, someone jumps in to brandish his pecker.

It is only a reasonable question if a "mind" as "an entity with defined properties" is agreed axiomatically. But since possible candidates for such an entity range from a reductionist "brain" through to a "holistic transcendent consciousness", claims about the functioning of such an entity are somewhat arbitrary.

Once more, in real life (as opposed to a synthetic philosophicl context) "reality" is negotiated by "minds" within a context of mutual need...and that may be all we can say.

Which deals with concepts of what REALITY actually is.

But whatever it IS (if it IS)...IT IS WHAT IT IS.

Whenever this topic is discussed, the matter always trails off to considerations about what REALITY is or may be...rather than simply acknowledging that WHATEVER IT IS...IT IS.

No Fresco I am not agreeing to any concept of mind but rather referring to what minds are said to do...if minds create/negotiate/observe reality then quite in reason one has to wonder and ask who created/negotiated/observed mind/s ?