How is this definition of "belief"?

We do tend to think that if we were absent from this life it would continue as an objective process, but that is because it would continue in the subjective lives of other human beings (forget about other animal species). What if everyone died and there was no more subjective version of the life experience? Then who would need Wittgenstein's therapy? Such therapy is only meaningful in the presence of living beings--with linguistic problems. What if we were all Taoists perfectly content to remain silent before the mysteries of philosophy?

But you can pose just the same question backwards can't you ?
Whatever minds refer to (that is not the point) they are said to create/negotiate/observe reality (this is the actual point)...if the assumption about minds observing reality is any good at all (I don't buy it) on the very same ground it should ask who observes minds without a reality...because if I follow you well you are supposing there is no reality without minds to see it...so how on hell there are minds ? minds themselves need be a reality which was not observed so that they could observe anything...that in itself constitutes the description of a reality can't you just plain see it J ? I know you for a calm honest person really so I am sure you can see the reasoning in the problem...

...on the other hand if the question is not good for questioning minds origin on the same ground is not good to speculate that minds created reality, as what raises the question is the very hypothesis you guys are trying to advance...I just wouldn't advise a double criteria for obvious reasons.

That's right. Taoists would simply not fall within synthetic conceptual boundaries. Constraints are either real or non-existent, never artificial. The same occurs when a zen monk "solves" a koan. He "passes" the koan only if he is operating at that moment "in real life", and it may very well be that his or her approropriate and authentic response is simple silence.

Good that is honest ! Then be silent about minds creating reality ! Take your own advice.

O.K.. The world should improve greatly if you and I decide to see the world as either both subjective and objective or neither. I'll try to keep my silence if you'll try to not speak of Reality as independent of Mind. Because then I won't know who's doing the talking.

But your "who" could merely be "another level of mind" e.g. holistic observing individual...okay so that leads to a potential infinite regress... but so what ? As I have argued before (according to second order cybernetics), there is no epistemological necessity for closure. Such closure tends to be a theistic option. Do you not see shades of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem operating here perhaps ?

Fair J...I to think minds are a very important part of our reality, in fact nothing matters more then our subjective experience, my point was never about diminishing the relevance of our own experiences but to pounder on a problem you guys have raised and I have sufficient grounds to do so...I would have to be mad to think subjectivity is meaningless, believe me I don't I think exactly the opposite. That all being said I appreciate your calm and quiet contribution, it helps and advances dialogue !

Yes It jumped to mind ages ago it is Gödel's incompleteness all over the problem...I am just pointing out the problem goes both ways...

...if you look at it in a more practical way you end up dropping the word "creation"...it works well for both of us.

Here's what's been going on for the last 20 or so pages of this thread.

Fil made an assertion, then called it a fact.

I challenged that, and called it an assumption.

Since then Frank has jumped in, and Fil has spun his assertion into many variations.
In all cases, they aim to assert something unknowable about reality, then call it fact. Or tautologies.

But "reality is objective" is not a tautology. It is an assumption.
I am arguing this, and Frank and Fil are refusing to listen.

And yes, it is mostly about semantics, but I don't see a problem with that in a thread about definitions of "belief".
It's nice to have you here though. Welcome.

...on another line of reasoning I don't see the problem of lacking closure being more uncomfortable to the idea of God then having closure...if anything the idea of closure in my mindless vision of the world renders"God" in a finite dead and self encircled program, while I suspect your view might point to an infinite mind, in an infinite loop of self reference, with infinite power levels...

This thread has gone a bit off it's topic.

We were not debating the nature of reality.
We were debating the classification of certain claims set forth in here.

We have been trying to get at what constitutes an assertion about something unknowable, and what we can state as fact.

In this regard, Fil made the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it". He then said this is a fact.

I've said that "there is a state of affairs" might be a tautology, but the addition of the last part; "no matter what we can know about it", makes it an assumption.

Whether reality is subjective or objective is irrelevant to the topic. The topic is what we can know.
And I have stated that it is beyond our ability to know with certainty whether or not there is an 'objective' reality. It is equally impossible to know whether reality depends on subjects.
Fil and Frank both seem to have difficulty understanding that just because I argue against one assertion, that doesn't mean I embrace the opposite of that assertion.
Fil seems to think that just because I say we can't know that reality is objective, I think we can know that it's subjective. But no. We can't know that either.

"Reality is objective" is tautological to a naive realist (like Frank). Such a person cannot understand it as "an assumption" because that would contravene their definition of "reality". The only resolution is for naive realists to realise that they are operating at the layman's level of terminology in which bedrock concepts like "time""change" and "identity" etc remain socially non-contentious. They need to consider what has happened to such concepts from a scientific point of view in which such concepts have only a tentative and nebulous relationship with experimental research. Paradigmatic shifts appear to be how knowledge progresses and there is an major operational distinction between "paradigms" and "assumptions within paradigms" which naive realists fail to acknowledge.

Are you suggesting reality it is not what is ? because Frank said nothing about reality !

Saying that reality is the object of what is is non informative !

It works as an abstract place holder, if you want drop the word reality altogether then don't use it...so far the use I've seen made of it for you guys is just like our use, you take it as a place holder.

(I'm still waiting your reply to my last post if you think is worth going there)

I am beginning to see that. Strange, though, since it is so obvious.

Stating the tautology "reality is" doesn't assert more than just that; reality is. It doesn't say anything about how or what that reality is.
Saying reality is objective is saying something about it. Something that is not given by the stated tautology.

And it's not really about any kind of realism, the way I see it. It's about grammar, and about understanding what words mean. What they say, what they don't say and what they imply.

The only reason Frank and Fil are acting up is that they made mistakes they refuse to own up to. That is the reason we have all become mighty keyboard warriors.

Fresco as yet to counter the question. Make no mistake.
The question arises or as you guys prefer emerges from the very assumption you people have made...if the question is not valid because of Gödel incompleteness then it is clear the word creation makes no sense !

In all fairness the problem of language is not ours is yours...
(not surprising must be a subjective side effect)

I am saying "reality is negotiable" at all levels of social discourse. I understand Frank as saying "reality is what IS", which precludes negotiation. And your reference to "information" is merely a red herring on the basis that information is by definition always contextual (i.e never "objective")

And yes it is "a place holder" for those who wish to engage in futile arguments about "belief" and "truth".

Address the point please...by negotiable you mean that reality is the product of mind or minds ?
It will be hard to agree if words are all negotiable right now...

PS - You are wrong information is objective meaning is not.
That is to say whatever information informs might be subjective.

So you agree then, that any assertion about minds making reality happen is an assumption?

Then it should be equally clear to you that any assertion about minds being irrelevant to reality happening is also an assumption.
Do you agree?

I am referring to the assumption that minds create reality not to the fact that reality being reality is in itself an object ! If anything it can be said reality it is perhaps the only true object once there is no going around it.

Have you ever found anyone who disagrees that reality is ? Idealists, Rationalists, Realists, they all agree with it. Where is the subjective stance on that ?

...now of course to say that reality it is what it is and that such as a place holder whom no one disagrees with makes it itself an object is not doing or saying much other then get you guys jumping from the seat with all alarms and bells ringing...meaning and description are the issue to which I've always agreed there is a subjective problem, not that reality as a whole is an object in itself.