How is this definition of "belief"?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I would gladly take a drink with any of you guys !

It would be a pleasure. And I'd bet that we'd all enjoy the encounter.

@Frank Apisa,

Me too! I'm going to Nova Scotia in September, but won't have the opportunity to stop by Boston or NYC for meets. I'm still planning to visit NYC one of these days, because my last visit there was when our kids were young - and David Letterman just started his show.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I'm still planning to visit NYC one of these days, because my last visit there was when our kids were young - and David Letterman just started his show.

You haven't missed anything.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I agree.
But it is hard when you have ridiculous people like Fil, who always tries to ridicule the original ideas, then replace them completely with his own version of these ideas, only to power through with how he is right.
Just check, if you are interested (I hope for your sake that you have more rewarding things to spend your time on though). Through this whole thread, Fil has ignored my comments, altering them to something he can argue against, then putting those words in my mouth, as if that makes it my words. It's ridiculous. It's a ruling technique, underhanded religious tricks that are also very effective in politics, but have no place in philosophy.

That matches my experience to a 't'. Chains of straw men. I remember mentioning once or twice, at least, how similar his techniques are to those of creationists and religious fundamentalists, theists in general. A couple of times he admitted to erring in vocabulary and/or expression, but still somehow laid the blame on me for not understanding his broken English. I haven't the least interest in him as a person or "defeating" him as a person. I'm just interested in the ideas and can't seem to get (m)any from him that are consistent, coherent or consistently coherent. Seems like he and a couple of others are just interested in "winning" for ego's sake. They muddy the water to the point that it's not worth sorting through their trash posts to find the good ones.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'll join if you guys vow not to mention the terms "objective" and "subjective", not even once! Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We can say that whether or not we can have definite proof...the logic is that WHAT IS...IS...and therefore, REALITY is objective.

Not according to the definitions of "objective" that I supplied earlier in this thread.
I understand what you are saying.
But it is not the normal usage of the concept "objective".

"Objective" means "independent of observers".
You agreed that we cannot know for sure that reality is independent of observers. This means that you agreed that we cannot know that reality is objective...

You said:

Quote:

so I cannot exclude the possibility that REALITY is totally independent of human perceptions.

The fact that you cannot exclude the possibility does not mean that it definitely has to be so. You cannot exclude the possibility that reality is dependent on human perceptions either. We simply do not know.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I can obje..ermm, promise I wont say it not even once !
(Faut pas que tu paniques je te jure !) Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I suspect, Cyracuz, that on some level you realize that those of us trying to put that point across are correct...

Nope. I suspect that you and the others who are quarreling about this are too proud or stubborn to admit to a small, trivial mistake you made, and therefore cannot admit to having misunderstood both the meaning and the context of "objective".

Quote:

...but because you have an investment in a "belief" about reality that cannot accomodate that, so you must insist that it is wrong.

Really? You are the one who has an investment in your "no beliefs".
What I believe about reality is that it REALITY IS regardless of what we humans perceive. I believe that reality would happen with or without us.

But I also understand that I cannot know this for sure. It is an assumption.
In fact, I would like nothing better than if someone was actually able to prove to me that you are correct.
But so far, no one has done it. I don't think anyone will, because there is no way to verify that if we didn't perceive reality, it would still be here.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

(Faut pas que tu paniques je te jure !)

okay, I'll even bring the Bordeaux...

Honestly, at some point any discussion reaches its limits and it's best to agree to disagree... Non?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

What I believe about reality is that it REALITY IS regardless of what we humans perceive. I believe that reality would happen with or without us.

But I also understand that I cannot know this for sure. It is an assumption.
In fact, I would like nothing better than if someone was actually able to prove to me that you are correct.

Depends what sort of proof you accept.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well, I hear you went up to Saratoga
And your horse naturally won
Then you flew your Lear jet up to Nova Scotia
To see the total eclipse of the sun
Well, you're where you should be all the time
And when you're not, you're with
Some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend

Smile

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I am all for freedom of speech. Everybody is entitled to have his own opinion and believing whatever the hell they want and deem fit to believe...
The point being made around here is that matters of fact wont change when and just because someone disagrees someone else...the world would be even more of a surreal mad house carnival if such was the case...I am sure you can see where I am headed with this ! Self evident things should not need more then a glance to make themselves clear enough...it is unfortunate in our world this is the exception rather then the rule.

...you promised a proper Bordeaux and I will keep that in mind if we get the chance to meet mon cher ami ! Wink

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I suspect, Cyracuz, that on some level you realize that those of us trying to put that point across are correct...

Nope. I suspect that you and the others who are quarreling about this are too proud or stubborn to admit to a small, trivial mistake you made, and therefore cannot admit to having misunderstood both the meaning and the context of "objective".

Quote:
...but because you have an investment in a "belief" about reality that cannot accomodate that, so you must insist that it is wrong.

Really? You are the one who has an investment in your "no beliefs".
What I believe about reality is that it REALITY IS regardless of what we humans perceive. I believe that reality would happen with or without us.

But I also understand that I cannot know this for sure. It is an assumption.
In fact, I would like nothing better than if someone was actually able to prove to me that you are correct.
But so far, no one has done it. I don't think anyone will, because there is no way to verify that if we didn't perceive reality, it would still be here.

Whatever actually IS...IS...no matter what it IS.

That is the objective REALITY.

If you want to depend on a dictionary definition in order to try to make that false...do so if it satisfies some need in you.

Amd of you must consider me proud, stubborn...or all the other stuff you have called me and later denied doing so...please be my guest.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

This is ridiculous Frank.
This is not rocket science.
In accordance with everything signified by the concept "objectivity", you, sir, are full of ****.
Believe what you want to believe, Frank. It is clear to me that's what you're going to do anyway.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You're of course free to express yourself in any way you want and for as long as you want, but I wonder: once you've made your case 1000 times already and the person you're talking to just doesn't get it, or can't agree with it, what makes you think that stating your case for the 1001th times will result in a different outcome?

There are obvious limits to how much communication can narrow differences of opinion or perception. Plus, once a debate degenerates into a dispute, each side "dig in their trenches" and their respective positions become immutable...

My 2 cents anyway...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Its not a matter of opinion in fact I've tried to convey that in my previous post to you...its a matter of logic where the proposed assumption lacks internal consistency...there is nothing to debate about that. What I said is that while opinions are worth what they are worth logic and proof are the bottom line minimum requisite when it comes to establish the viability of an hypothesis...There is none there. Anyone can get why a mind needs itself to be real in order to create or to act upon whatever else and thus that if it cannot justify itself 's own existence on Occam Razor principle there is no reason to believe it could justify anything else...whatever is per se real and cannot justify (create) itself is BY DEFINITION independent of observing...an object ! None of this needs much explaining...as an example it comes to mind the debate between Daniel Dennett and William Lane Craig on which Dennett unfortunately suggested the Universe created itself and was mocked ad nausea by a newbie like Craig because he didn't get the obvious contradiction implied...either one drops the term "creation" or one gets something else for a causal link...I personally don't believe in Gods and thus assume the Universe is eternal and cyclic through a sequence of Big Bangs followed by expansion until matter evaporates in energy achieving almost thermal equilibrium maximum entropy from where energy can convert back to matter and under the effect of gravity re-collapsing back to a big bang with minimum starting entropy (yes the 2 law can't make it go past a maximum entropy point where a maximum degree of freedom was already achieved once you have only quantum vacuum energy and virtual particles uniformly distributed through all the space and thus by default you can only go back down from there as random movement keeps going on for aeons...)
Of course my personnel interpretation on the specifics on how the systems works is irrelevant for the matter at hand other then to say things do not create themselves...its a well know common noob mistaken assumption that first grades students are taught to avoid...unfortunately it seams top names like Dennett still can fall for it...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

This is ridiculous Frank.
This is not rocket science.

Yes, it is ridiculous...and no it is not rocket science, Cyracuz. That is why I am wondering why you cannot seem to grasp it.

Whatever the REALITY IS...it IS.

That, since it is a tautology...indicates that REALITY has to be objective.

Quote:

In accordance with everything signified by the concept "objectivity", you, sir, are full of ****.

My guess is that the significance of the concept "objectivity" has nothing to do with any of my alimentary conditions. Try to keep control. I am not going to return fire on the name-calling.

Quote:

Believe what you want to believe, Frank. It is clear to me that's what you're going to do anyway.

If it were "clear" to you...this has nothing to do with "beliefs" on my part, although it certainly has to do with "beliefs" on your part. I do not do "beliefs." And one of the dangers of doing them is illustrated by your "beliefs" interfering with you ability to grasp this obvious concept.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I agree with you that "a mind needs itself to be real in order to create or to act upon whatever else", and I also agree that this is simple logic. If a person thinks (s)he doesn't exist, then the least that non-existing person can do is shut the f... up.

Still, my point remains that there can be diminishing return on communication, especially when debaters lock themselves into a fighting mode. At some point, the debaters reach a plateau where no information actually gets exchanged anymore, only noise.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

True. Objective is when perceptions of it does not change with the observer. Unfortunately for us human animals, our perceptions differ by degrees depending on what the object/subject is.

That's the reason when five witnesses see an accident, their interpretations of what they saw can all be different! That's "subective."

If it were objective, everybody would tell the same story. It would be
"consistent" like the sun rising in the morning.

My "beliefs" about reality is different than yours; therefore "subjective."

2 Replies

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know