How is this definition of "belief"?

No.
You must meet them all the time though, because it's all you are going on about.
I have never contested that.
I have contested your ability to tell assumption from fact. So far you have only demonstrated that my assertion is correct; you do not have a clue.

Cyr for Christ sake man...if you never found someone who disagrees that reality is what is where is the subjectivity ??? You see subjectivity would imply some people might say reality it is any other thing say an orange...

How do you know????

Because the definition of subjective sub intends people would have a different opinion...or did you got a all new meaning to subjective ?

...is not like you can throw randomly at every thing how do you know...it depends on definition !
How would you feel if I throw at you how do you know subjective signifies anything ?...

I'd feel fine with it. The truth is I can't know. I can only assume and question.

Can you admit that you don't really know any of this? That you are making assumptions, not stating facts?

Sorry but if we can't agree on the meaning of subjective there is no possibility of debate I might as well start writing in Martian...

According to google translate, you already are...

Cyracuz...I probably say the words "I do not know" more than any person in this forum. I have no problem whatever acknowledging that I do not know what I do not know. For you to suggest that I am refusing to do so is bizarre.

The nonsense Fresco just spouted...is pathetic.

Whatever the REALITY is...INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE IS NO REALITY...that all is an illusion...

...IS what IS.

If there is anyone who is unwilling to acknowledge the being wrong...it is not I.

What IS...IS. Insofar as WHAT IS...is the REALITY...then the REALITY must be objective.

Play those other games with Fresco.

I don't want to be a trouble maker, but let's change the subject to the nature of Ultimate Reality.

If you asked a bar full of naive realist if Reality is real, they'd kick you out of the joint--but not for good reason.

You ought to distinguish between a naive realist that thinks that reality can be fully known and described from middle field moderate positions that admit a thing in itself an objective noumena but that promptly will agree we will never fully describe it...conceding that would be civil and fair whilst falling for an easy inadequate criticism will just further the idea that you are coming from a weak position...don't go on calling naive realists to people that probably grasp this matter better then you do, its unneeded, looks ugly, and it doesn't advance an interest in dialogue...

"Naive realists" is an insult hurled by people who think their guess about REALITY is better than other guesses.

Naive realists may be closer to correct than those who consider them with contempt, scorn, or amusement.

Me...I do not know what REALITY is. I am neither a naive realist nor whatever today's antithesis is for naive realism. Nor am I anything in between.

I simply do not know.

We've had a pretty tough day, guys. Let's lighten up.

I have adressed the point. "Reality" like "truth" is short-hand for "what works" to justify or inform a course of action. Both words are irrelevant unless a situation of conflict arises in the selection of alternative actions. Such a situation then defines what constitutes "information" or "data which allows decisions between alternatives". The word "mind" is merely an analogy of a debating chamber in which alternatives are decided upon. It is an anthropocentric concept which is inapplicable to other species. Where no conlict arises, as in the case of a religious community, "reality" becomes synonymous with what outsiders call "belief". Reality is embedded in epistemological paradigms which evolve and shift according to their impact on social relationships. Such shifting has accelerated since the realtively recent advent of "science" and has left traditional concepts of "fixed reality" as an anachronism.

And I re-iterate, your insistence on the "objectivity of information" is your main intellectual problem. Both of those conponents have been resoundingly deconstructed.

That is the most funny thing you have ever come to confuse yet Fresco...without objective information you don't have any transmission of anything, mechanic fails ! You don't know what is being transmitted, nor if anything is being transmitted at all...for all your accounting, there is nothing objectively being transmitted, that is, there is NO OBJECT being transmitted, and that's EXACTLY what it means in your usage...one thing is to consider that meaning and interpretation of precise data can happen, a function variation in relation to source crude data, another to state that information has no precise "mass" (quantity)...you see you cannot trade unknowable amounts of anything...you go on to hammer the meaning of words when it goes against your agenda, but as soon as antagonism is gone you have precise meanings for it when you assemble your own theory's and you proceed to portray objective clear ideas like "mind creates reality" and so on...those things are having precise strict meaning although they convey wrong ideas, brain wash...the contradiction which is unacceptable is that you use logic up to the extent where it serves your interests but refuse to use it to make an analysis of your own charades and fantasy talk ...and no, you have not yet addressed the question as long you keep saying minds create/observe or negotiate reality the question is perfectly valid and stands without an answer !!! It is a sentence INTENTIONALLY build from your own paradigm and in the direct symmetric proportion of your very own claims pointing back at your own nonsense !!!

I can imagine a planet teeming with intelligent life, but unlucky enough to be circling a star very close to another star that goes supernova…and the result of that massive explosion destroys both stars, the planet, and every living molecule in both systems.

And just days before the explosion…an otherwise intelligent, but foolish person like Fresco on the planet teeming with life, writing:



Boy, if that genius could only come back from anihilation, wouldn't he be disappointed!

Wake up everyone.

We do not know what the REALITY is…

...despite Fresco being “able” to describe it so exactly.

But whatever the REALITY is…even if it is like the guess Fresco is presenting as fact being revealed by a genius…it IS what it IS. It objectively IS what it IS...no matter what.

I gotta go to work in an hour. Gonna rain. We’ll only get one or two golfers. Day is going to go by like forever. Can’t wait to get back to resume this interesting discussion.

Here is a good nice account of my idea of functions that do not depend on mind and that portrays objects from a relational point of view, what I have often refer in my talks as objects emerging out of functional relations not just with agents but with other objects...it is exactly in this context one can speak of layers of reality or layers of experience without undermining mechanics...

But if you asked a bar full of 'sophisticated realists' (whatever that is) if reality is real, they would argue about it among themselves for weeks.