How is this definition of "belief"?

Of course Frank..I was just venting off at large with no direction...its the overall effect of A2K getting back at me...

As I see it a mirage is a real mirage, but this means that it is epistemically (or subjectively) real while a mountain is ontologically (or objectively) real. Everything is real but in different ways.

Your last bit is enigmatic...it sounds simple but is enigmatic...how can things be real in different ways ? For instance in an information world there is no distinction (to my view) to be made between abstract objects and concrete objects J, and just how can you be sure a mountain is an ontological reality...you are just sounding like a materialist now... besides if having one, a mountain has no greater ontological status then an hallucination has when we say its a real hallucination...

JLN, But a mirage is an optical "illusion" while the mountain is somewhat static and doesn't rely on environment and weather conditions.

But do you not think that an hallucination or a feelling can be subjectively real (purely mental or epistemic) as opposed to an objectively real mountain that one is attempting to climb. You would consider both the feeling and the mountain to have ontologically real statuses? I'm just asking.

What you are talking about are subjective interpretations. It's true that some see them as "real," while others don't accept them as "real." A mountain is a mountain is a mountain.

Because it doesn't, according to what "objetive" means.

Why will you not define the word for usif you are so certain you are right?

This has to be the most menial form of sophistry I have been subjected to, save for Fil's rantings.

Precisely. But how many understand the contextual dynamics behind that ?

Of course both the mountain which I climb and the feeling I do really feel have exactly the same status although the mountain is something easier to spot...I'm under the impression you might think there are no triangles, circles, moral values, space or time etc, other then in human mind while I see them as part of the same program where all that it is real arises...information is as much real as anything else it even requires you to spend energy to transmit it...

Excuse me a mountain is a mountain is a mountain is no more real then a feeling is a feeling is a feeling unless you are faking the feeling...or do you believe feelings transmit reactions to the human body by grace of the holy spirit eh ?

Tell me when you see a flock of birds turning direction in an organized pattern the pattern changing direction has no ontological status ? Is it an hallucination ? you see we know no specific bird is commandeering the flock...

(...The classical distinctions are a comedia...they hold as much water as saying the matter is material)

Well it seams you are not one of them as you have no clue onto what you just agreed with...in fact if you agree that doesn't make you much of a mind idealist...

...it is precisely because most don't understand the dynamics and reconciliation of apparently distinct forms of being that I am having the time of my life in this thread...its a damn laugh to go through it n read it twice...

You see I think I told you guys long ago I am a monist also, I just don't put mind in control of anything...its not in a different category of being nor such nonsense of different category's hold much water other then to help simple minded people have a slight grasp of these things without going mad or jumping out of a window out of frustration...

For instance in specific a description of an outside explicit object needs refer to a source while a mental image which is not a description of an outside object needs not refer to anything other then itself to be real it just so happens the object is implicit and harder to look at...do you see the point or where I'm going ? There is nothing metaphysical in a self referring mental image any more there is in a pattern of a flock of birds changing direction in the sky...

...just to conclude my amused walk in the park here I will say that when the whole pseudo charade objective vs subjective dichotomy falls, as Frank has said in a simpler way, all you have left is that whatever it is the case to be reality will be the case OBJECTIVELY !

To make it clear, when we say that someone is hallucinating about "reality" what we truly mean, is that some real (on going) description supposedly referring upon something else cannot refer, and not that the imagery itself is not happening...its a mistake to think that it can refer but its not a mistake to recognise it exists.

I don't believe any of you jokers.

Is that objectively a subjective statement isn't it ? How can I know that you don't ?

Didn't your mind control this message above?

It did.
That my mind was the effective cause of this message doesn't mean my mind is in control on why I ought to send this or the previous messages...it was my will but whether my will was free to do so is a complex matter to debate...you now come to know I am no free will advocate.

When anyone says "I believe.....," they've already proved subjectivity.

I am not saying there is no subjectivity I am saying a subjective state does not oppose an objective state when it comes to be speaking about reality or what exists, in fact a subjective state to exist it is itself an objective state.
Subjective reports a mental state of affairs which is specific to a subject, itself an objective fact about such state of affairs....whether that very same state of affairs reports anything that may correspond to another state of affairs in the world (knowledge about something that may or may not exist other then in the mind of the subject) is an entirely different matter. But it exists per se in the subject and can have real manifestations in our world through physical behaviour...so it can be said it exists in the world. That's why we say an hallucination is a real hallucination !