How is this definition of "belief"?

Whatever it is, thought...that is what it is. That objectively is what it is.

Quote:

Whatever it is, thought...that is what it is. That objectively is what it is.

I will accept that you believe that.
I see it as an unverifiable assumption.
But you are of course free to believe what you want.

Hi again, Frank. I think I'd like to get back to the question about how to refute the metaphysical solipsist. So far, we discussed the possibility that reality may be objective or simultaneously both objective and subjective, but we haven't entertained the possibility that it may be only subjective.

A paraphrasing of Wiki on "solipsism":

The epistemological solipsist's claim is that nothing outside subjective experiment is certain, so unless one experiences objectivity, a logical impossibility, no such truth claim can be justified.

The metaphysical solipsist makes the claim that nothing outside his/her own mind exists, which demolishes objective reality altogether.

I don't hold either of these positions, mind you, but I'm interested in how you would address them with regards to the objective nature of reality. Cheers!

Once again (although I realize you are not necessarily defending solipsism), give me an example of REALITY being only subjective. We can discuss it.

Whatever Frank.
You say you don't do beliefs.
Yet you are unable to keep your beliefs out of this conversation.

Let me ask you this; if reality, whatever it is, is indeed objective, to who is it objective?

Ah. Typo. I meant "experience."

Anyway, I also am not sure how it might be done beyond pointing to everyday experience. But I'm also not sure how you can be sure that anything (or everything) has an objective feature, seeing as how experience is necessarily subjective. From a Pyrrhonist perspective, it's a metaphysical claim open to disputation, as it doesn't seem to be testable or falsifiable. How can we know anything about anything outside the realm of experience?

Of course you will say that.

But come on, Frank. Give us an example of REALITY being only objective.

Hmm. Again, the solipsist's position isn't one that I hold, but I'll try to represent it as best I can.

I don't think that that position does actually say that reality "is dependent on" personal experience. I don't see any ontological priority assigned in the solipsist's position, since they claim that subjective experience is all that there is.

And as to whether anything existed before humans, that's a bit off-target, I think. For example, I have the memory of experiences of being taught about the history of the universe, but does that memory of those experiences entail that those experiences are true? Similarly, the first-person perspective entails second- and third-person perspectives, but does that necessarily entail anything at all about anything outside the realm of subjectivity? The brain generates a sense of certainty sometimes, but sometimes that sense of certainty turns out to be wrong. The brain seems to generate an objective perspective about the world of experience, but I'm not sure how that is any more reliable than the sense of certainty. The sense of objectivity is a subjective sense, by definition, but claiming that it accurately describes that which is beyond experience is taking an unwise and unnecessary leap, it seems.

Hmm. Again, the solipsist's position isn't one that I hold, but I'll try to represent it as best I can.

I don't think that that position does actually say that reality "is dependent on" personal experience. I don't see any ontological priority assigned in the solipsist's position, since they claim that subjective experience is all that there is.