How is this definition of "belief"?

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

The premise "no matter what we can know about it" is not self-consistent, as you put it.

Wake up ! I just DID PROVE ITS CONSISTENCY by disproving your counter and any counter with a similar framing say, hammers banging in walls !

Quote:

Need I remind you of that lovely post where you said that if reality is subjective, that proves that it is objective? Lol!

Its the conclusion of your own assumption idiot which I had to take as premiss to test it !!!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

thus MINDS need exist prior to reality ! Which is logically inconsistent !

Why do minds have to exist prior to reality? That's an assumption, and it's rather presumptuous of you. Does it have to be that way because it is the only thing you can think of?

Reality may just be some phenomenon in which sentience is just a random occurrence that has no relevance to reality happening.

It may also be something that happens in the relationship between perceiver and perceived, both becoming real within the relationship.

Or maybe reality is just a figment of our collective imagination.

That's three possibilities for what reality might be. All three are consistent with the assertion "reality is". But not all of them are consistent with "reality is objective".

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Why do minds have to exist prior to reality?

According to you to observe/create it !

But of course minds themselves if not real because there is no reality can't exist ! Its simply inconsistent !

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Therefore all belief is delusional.

Even the belief that it is wrong to steal?

That it is wrong to steal is a belief of a slightly different kind, though. It is not a matter of true or false, but of right and wrong. It's a matter of choice, not proof.

But when it comes to the beliefs that are either true or false, I do not think unproven is always the same as wrong.
But a 'right't and 'proven' belief sounds a little strange. If it has been proven that it is indeed so, it's no longer a belief, but fact.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I just DID PROVE ITS CONSISTENCY by disproving your counter and any counter with a similar framing say, hammers banging in walls !

You did not. All those posts, all those pages, and you still haven't managed to prove that your assertion is a fact. That's because it's an assumption.

Quote:

Its the conclusion of your own assumption idiot which I had to take as premiss to test it !!!

...

...

...

...

...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Why do minds have to exist prior to reality?

It doesn't. Nature evolves whether there are life forms to live within it.

This planet is said to be 4.5 billion years old. Other galaxies and planets much older. Those are 'REAL.' Those will continue to exist whether life forms are alive on this planet.

If those events didn't happen 4.5 billion years ago, our reality wouldn't exist.
It will continue to exist after we are all gone.

That is consistent with "reality."

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Claim all you want...let me tell you a little secret there is not 1 SINGLE SMART person on this forum that didn't notice my point !

Any further doubts read back 100x till you get it ! I'm off...
(told you before hammering an argument ad nausea won't make you get what clearly you seam unable to get)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't know what else I can say. You seem to lack the mental clarity to take this further. You can't be faulted for it though. No more than a child can be faulted for being too short to be able to see whats on the table.

This conversation reminds me of similar conversations I've had with religious people who KNOW that God is real. Their arguments for how they know are very similar to your arguments of how you know the stuff you claim to know. Based on assumptions you are unwilling to admit are assumptions.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

let me tell you a little secret there is not 1 SINGLE SMART person on this forum that didn't notice my point !

Lol! Name dropping works better if you have actual names.
But I understand what you mean, since I know you, and in your world, you are the only smart person on this forum.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I understand what you mean.
But we can only know for sure that it is consistent with "human reality".
It probably is consistent with reality. Fil's stubborn assertion that reality is independent of subjective experience might be correct.
Everything Fil says might be right.
The only thing I have said the whole time is that we can't know for sure.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Where did I say they don't exist?

Up-thread you said cars don't exist, because they are made of parts. Parts that keep moving.

Did you forgot already? Alzheimer is bliss.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Stop with the insults... or F*** off!

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Where did I say they don't exist?

Up-thread you said cars don't exist, because they are made of parts. Parts that keep moving.

Did you forgot already? Alzheimer is bliss.

Quote:

What's magic about everything not being permanent... everything is impermanent. If it was permanent from one moment to the next then nothing would ever change. When things change which they continually do they are not the same as they were before... 'the' car is gone and replaced by another car 'but' the concept and label can still be applied to it.... giving the illusion that the same car exists over time.

Where?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Therefore all belief is delusional.

Even the belief that it is wrong to steal?

That it is wrong to steal is a belief of a slightly different kind, though. It is not a matter of true or false, but of right and wrong. It's a matter of choice, not proof.

But when it comes to the beliefs that are either true or false, I do not think unproven is always the same as wrong.
But a 'right't and 'proven' belief sounds a little strange. If it has been proven that it is indeed so, it's no longer a belief, but fact.

My previous post was a comment on one of the first posts you made after your OP.

You used the words 'wrong' and 'unproven' so I used their opposite to show how if the opposite was the case then it wouldn't be a belief... as you say it would be a fact. So you're just agreeing with me... but that means that your first post or second after the OP was incorrect on this subject.

A belief that it is 'always' correct not to steal is wrong there must be examples of times when it would be the best course of action. A belief that it is 'mostly wrong to steal' is useful but 'mostly' as a part of belief is problematic.

So, on truth and falsity at least I stand by what I said in my last post - beliefs are a form of delusion not an alternative to it i.e. I disagree with your post to JL.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I believe it's more than "human reality." I believe all life forms have a "reality."

They must survive by their genes and environment.

0 Replies

@igm,

Here:

Post: # 5,334,937: If I examine all the parts of a car I don't find a car or car-ness but I can drive the car... I don't however believe there is a truly existent car... there appears to be but when examined it cannot be found...

And here:

Post: # 5,340,661: I disagree. Where does the truly existent car reside? It's not in one of its parts or all of its parts or separate from its parts. The car is imputed by the mind but does not truly exist. I won't be commenting further so there's no need to reply.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Here:

Post: # 5,334,937: If I examine all the parts of a car I don't find a car or car-ness but I can drive the car... I don't however believe there is a truly existent car... there appears to be but when examined it cannot be found...

And here:

Post: # 5,340,661: I disagree. Where does the truly existent car reside? It's not in one of its parts or all of its parts or separate from its parts. The car is imputed by the mind but does not truly exist. I won't be commenting further so there's no need to reply.

You obviously don't know and can't be bothered to ask what 'truly' existent means... hint it does not mean non-existent as you claim it does in the phrase 'not truly existent'.

Please re-read I've amended the last line for clarity.

1 Reply

@igm,

Ok, so what do you mean when you say "the car does not truly exist"?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Ok, so what do you mean when you say "the car does not truly exist"?

After you apologize for the insults made - not to me - but about me to other people i.e. Fil and Joe. So, not only insults but 'behind my back', (do you understand that phrase?)

Not to mention all your other flippant comments... apologize and we can continue... or not... it's up to you.

1 Reply

@igm,

Another obfuscation tactic. I never insulted you. You know you're wrong and can't win this one, and that's the reason you're going all nervous now.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You did insult me are you now a liar as well?

Olivier5 wrote:

Another obfuscation tactic. I never insulted you. You know you're wrong and can't win this one, and that's the reason you're going all nervous now.

Truly existent is a term widely used e.g.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628920.200-what-truly-exists-structure-as-a-route-to-the-real.html

What truly exists? Structure as a route to the real

28 November 2012 by Eric Scerri
Magazine issue 2892. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the The Big Idea Topic Guide

ARE you ever tempted to ask whether entities such as electrons, black holes or the Higgs particle really exist? As a chemist, I worry about what is real and dependable in my field. Is it the "entities" or the "theories" of chemistry and quantum mechanics that largely explain the periodic table? I also care because all of this goes to the heart of an old, important - and unresolved - debate about how to regard scientific discoveries.

There are two main camps in this debate: scientific realism and anti-realism. Scientific realism holds that if science has made great progress by invoking entities such as electrons, then we should take the next step of accepting that they really do exist, that the world described by science is the "real" world. Our present theories are too successful to have happened by chance: somehow we have latched onto the blueprint of the universe. .

Everything you've said about my posts is both flippant and wrong... laced with insults.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know