How is this definition of "belief"?

But how can you know that whatever it is, it is free and independent of the feelings, opinions and perceptions of any sentient subject?

So its is objectively true, reality it is what it is independently of what a 1 mind come to think about itself...it needed exist first to create whatever after...in itself such mind was a reality and yet not observed by other mind because THERE WERE NO MINDS before it !!!

But how can you know that whatever it is, it is free and independent of the feelings, opinions and perceptions of any sentient subject?

What basis do you or any other sentient subject have to make that assertion?

And if, whatever it is, it contains all the sentient subjects, then to who is it objective?

Take igm for instance. He evidently knows intuitively that there are such things as cars, probably even owns one. This is really ultrabasic: a 4 yr old knows that. Heck, even a dog knows that cars exist. But someone put in igm's mind the completely ridiculous idea that cars do not exist, with some additional misconception that this is really the smart thing to believe, that only simple minds take cars for granted... And so he was dumbed down and confused by philosophy, rather than being helped by it.

What I see in this thread is a bunch of bright people asserting positions that are to them self-evident. This includes me. The wonderful thing about the philosophical life is that it is not as public in nature as are the theses and countertheses in Science. It has a very strong deliciously subjective, even psycho-spiritual or artistic, basis. Indeed, as I susggested earlier, it's foundation is intuitive.
For this reason we have here a situation where intelligent people cannot pursuade other intelligent people, and they cannot be pursuaded away from their fondest metaphysical assumptions. What we CAN do it seems is to refine the terms of our competing arguments. And that is constructive.
One of my fundamental (perhaps delusionally self-evident) theses, not too different from the objectivism of Frank, is that I don't have to worry about being wrong. Reality, Truth, Dharma, whatever, will not be harmed or in any way affected by my efforts. In that sense it is independent of me--but I am not independent of It. And I repeat Frank again: I do not hava a confident cognitive grasp of what it is; I only "know" (my central presupposition) that I am intrinsic to it; it is me (and you). This is what I think I share most with Cryacuz and Fresco.

But Frank I must insist that human thought and consciousness are essential to the existence of HUMAN reality. That seems as obvious (self-evident) to me as "What is...is" is to you.

By the way Cyracuz I can logically prove my mental experiment is logically justified do you wish to test its soundness ? I am willing to repeat it step by step with you through a rhetorical series of questions to which you only need to answer yes or no...