5
   

How is this definition of "belief"?

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:05 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

If you're talking about me Frank... you read a lot into my two questions to Fil... wrong as usual...


If you are among the people arguing as I suggested...then I am talking about you, igm. And I am far from "wrong" in what I said.

How do you know that?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:07 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

If you're talking about me Frank... you read a lot into my two questions to Fil... wrong as usual...


If you are among the people arguing as I suggested...then I am talking about you, igm. And I am far from "wrong" in what I said.

How do you know that?


How do I know I am not wrong, igm? Because I am correct!
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

How do I know I am not wrong, igm? Because I am correct!

I don't need to...Frank the dogmatic.. you can't 'know' Frank... anything whatsoever and you contradict your thesis when you say you can.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM wrote:

I don't have any particular beef about that, but I was referring to the word "objective."


What about the word "objective."

REALITY is whatever it is.


I'm cool this far.

Quote:
That means REALITY must be objective.


How does this necessarily follow? How do you defeat the solipsist? (I'm leaving open the possibility.)

Quote:
Even if it is "subjective"...it is objectively subjective.


I'm not seeing how you're avoiding self-contradiction in that. (Still leaving open the possibility.)

Quote:
The argument that it is not, considering the fact that it IS whatever it IS...is impossible.


I'm not sure how this is support for the objective quality of whatever is. Not saying it isn't, mind you, only that I can't see it as it is stated here.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
We can, for instance, say: REALITY...IS whatever IS. Whatever the reality of existence IS...that is what it IS.


I have not argued against this. Not one single time during this whole thread.

There is no need to keep repeating it. I know this.

But I do not agree that this justifies saying reality is objective.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:13 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do I know I am not wrong, igm? Because I am correct!

I don't need to...Frank the dogmatic.. you can't 'know' Frank... anything whatsoever and you contradict your thesis when you say you can.


What the hell were you trying to say...and failed to do?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
...cool it down guys, peace...I think igm was just being inquisitive he honestly wants to get to the bottom of the matter and not to just making a stand...I provided my best possible answer so it is as clear as it is possible to be shown...
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do I know I am not wrong, igm? Because I am correct!

I don't need to...Frank the dogmatic.. you can't 'know' Frank... anything whatsoever and you contradict your thesis when you say you can.


What the hell were you trying to say...and failed to do?

You can't know you are correct, you can only guess... it's your line not mine.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:21 am
Being what it is IS EXACTLY what Objective (object oriented) means !
That A is A and thus not relative as being B for C or E for Y...A is A is what OBJECTIVE states !

This is basic stuff, A is A clearly shows the function is independent !
(Properly put its not even a function it makes functioning in subsets.)

If you agree to A is A you are AGREEING to OBJECTIVITY !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:29 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM wrote:

I don't have any particular beef about that, but I was referring to the word "objective."


What about the word "objective."

REALITY is whatever it is.


I'm cool this far.

Quote:
That means REALITY must be objective.


How does this necessarily follow? How do you defeat the solipsist? (I'm leaving open the possibility.)

Quote:
Even if it is "subjective"...it is objectively subjective.


I'm not seeing how you're avoiding self-contradiction in that. (Still leaving open the possibility.)

Quote:
The argument that it is not, considering the fact that it IS whatever it IS...is impossible.


I'm not sure how this is support for the objective quality of whatever is. Not saying it isn't, mind you, only that I can't see it as it is stated here.


Let me take your questions as a whole, FBM.

If REALITY is whatever it is...yes, that does mean it is objective. It is...what it is. There is no subjectivity to that at all. And I do not have to KNOW what the REALITY is, because the fact that it is whatever it is...means that it objectively IS.

As for "even if it is "subjective"...it is objectively subjective."...well, that takes a bit of thinking.

If the REALITY IS that it is dependent upon what humans on planet Earth think of it (I even hate putting that into a hypothetical)...then objectively speaking...that is the REALITY. The fact that "humans on planet Earth" have to be subjective in their considerations...does not make the objectivity of that (hypothetical) REALITY any less objective. If the subjective considerations are necessary...that objectively is the REALITY.

Now, in that hypothetical, I guess it could reasonably be argued that REALITY would be both objective and subjective. But so what? My argument is that it has to be objective...and even in the "objective AND subjective" situation...it would be objective. (By the way, the only way that would be both...is if the people guessing that puny humans on planet Earth are indispensable to REALITY...are correct in that guess. Pretty flimsy basis for the assertion that REALITY must be subjective.)

Please do not leave this, FBM...come back at me. Pick a particular point if you can...and lets discuss it until either one of us sees the other's position as superior...or we decide that we cannot reach accommodation on it. I appreciate your interest. For the record, this discussion has passed the point of absurdity, but rather than do what some are doing (coming in any calling everyone participating fools of some sort)...I find it interesting and amusing. Passes the time when I come in to rest after golf or while doing the lawn.)
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:30 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
We can, for instance, say: REALITY...IS whatever IS. Whatever the reality of existence IS...that is what it IS.


I have not argued against this. Not one single time during this whole thread.

There is no need to keep repeating it. I know this.

But I do not agree that this justifies saying reality is objective.


Respectfully as possible, Cyracuz...you have to consider it a bit more, because if REALITY IS whatever it IS...that has to mean it is objective. (More about that in my response above.)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:31 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do I know I am not wrong, igm? Because I am correct!

I don't need to...Frank the dogmatic.. you can't 'know' Frank... anything whatsoever and you contradict your thesis when you say you can.


What the hell were you trying to say...and failed to do?

You can't know you are correct, you can only guess... it's your line not mine.


Really? In other words you are saying that I cannot know anything?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:36 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...cool it down guys, peace...I think igm was just being inquisitive he honestly wants to get to the bottom of the matter and not to just making a stand...I provided my best possible answer so it is as clear as it is possible to be shown...


Fil...he asked a question of me...and I answered it. I have attempted to be as courteous as possible...and have not used the characterizations that have been used on me.

Considering some of the postings made by othesr...addressing this one to me seems inappropriate.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:37 am
@Frank Apisa,
If human mind was the only reality IT STILL could not create itself...thus again that in itself means its independent of observation. While anything else, any other subset could be a creation of mind itself as a whole it could not create itself if already itself...which would in turn imply, all other subsets were not created once the master set could not be created...thus again even if a mind IT IS what IT IS is being relative to nothing and further we would conclude minds have NO FREE WILL...they are what they are...they don't chose to be A or B or C...they are what they are...this naive idea that minds go on about making stuff up as they go is just stupid...as it all comes down to one last unmoved mover nothing chooses nothing...REALITY as a WHOLE does not MOVE !
We as sub sets, as temporal creatures have the impression of movement of relation...but ultimately ALL being ALL it cannot outgrow expand or move itself...it is defined and as defined powerless to change itself A being A...All cannot change being All !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:39 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If human mind was the only reality IT STILL could not create itself...thus again that in itself means its independent of observation. While anything else, any other subset could be a creation of mind itself as a whole it could not create itself if already itself...which would intern imply...all other subsets were not created once the master set could not be created...thus again even if a mind IT IS what IT IS and further we would conclude minds have NO FREE WILL...they are what they are...they don't chose to be A or B or C...they are what they are...this naive idea that minds go on about making stuff up as they go is just stupid...as it all comes down to one last unmoved mover nothing chooses nothing...REALITY as a WHOLE does not MOVE !
We as sub sets, as temporal creatures have the impression of movement of relation...but ultimately ALL being ALL it cannot outgrow expand or move itself...it is defined and as defined powerless to change itself A being A...All cannot change being All !


Not sure why you are addressing this one to me either, Fil

We are pretty much on the same page on this issue.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:42 am
@Frank Apisa,
Thanks for your encouragement, Frank. I really was about to just drop it before you said that. Smile

That said, it's pushing midnight here and I'd rather take some time to ponder/research this more deeply before responding. I have a feeling the thread will still be going when I get back...

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
oh not to you was just I keep trusting on...I know we are on same page..."keep it simple" Cutty Sark ad comes to mind... Wink

(I am going for an espresso around the corner come back soon)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Of coarse, reality is what it is, but for each of us it's SUBJECTIVE. Humans or other living organs are not robots, but are subjects of their genes and environment.

We direct our own lives; that's subjective.
We are constrained by our genes and environment; those are natural conditions of life forms on earth.
Objective means the perception of something doesn't change with the observer.
Human perception is SUBJECTIVE. We direct our own actions as we perceive it - right or wrong.

Out of the over six billion humans on earth who are now living, we all direct our own lives subjectively, because we perceive our lives differently - its values and importance of actions.

If it were objective, we would all be living similar lives, because our perception, values and belief would be the same about all things. We don't. Objective means A remains A. Subjective means A can mean almost anything - even beyond the alphabet.

Human progress is the evidence.

Belief and perception is never A equals A. We as observers interpret most things differently except for things that are objective in nature.

It's still consistent with What Is What It Is, because humans have choices.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 08:58 am
@cicerone imposter,
This is totally out of context..we are addressing reality as a whole, therefore the example I was compelled to make refers to 1 mind as being all...its an example of reductio ad absurdum...do you get why ?
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 09:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
Yes... it's all a belief or a guess etc..
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 07:25:01