5
   

How is this definition of "belief"?

Forums: Belief, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
It really looks like you're begging the question, Frank. Assuming that the 3rd-person "it" already possesses 3rd-person objectivity, ie, otherness. I don't see how that's logically required of existence, even though it is deep structure of language.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
When I am wrong...I freely acknowledge that I am.


Yes. When you are wrong and you realize it, you acknowledge it.
But what about the times when you are wrong, and not aware of it?

You have not explained how you can say anything about something that is by definition unreachable to us.

I'll agree to this:
IF there is a reality completely independent of any subjective perceivers, that reality is objective (in your rather meaningless sense of the word).

But you can not know that there is a reality completely independent of any subjective perceiver. Asserting it is a guess!

You cannot know this because you and everyone else who can be consulted about this matter have subjective perspectives.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:28 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

It really looks like you're begging the question, Frank. Assuming that the 3rd-person "it" already possesses 3rd-person objectivity, ie, otherness. I don't see how that's logically required of existence, even though it is deep structure of language.


I do not think so, FBM.

Whatever actually IS...IS. Whatever the REALITY actually IS...that is what it is.

How you can consider that anything but an objective REALITY is beyond me, but obviously you cannot see my point and I cannot see yours.

So...where do we go from here?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:30 am
@Frank Apisa,
How about simply agreeing to disagree? Or maybe to admit that neither of us is expressing himself adequately to resolve the difference? Smile
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:33 am
@FBM,
All it would take was for Frank to study the concept of "objectivity". Then he might realize that his use of the word in this context is completely unwarranted.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:33 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
When I am wrong...I freely acknowledge that I am.


Yes. When you are wrong and you realize it, you acknowledge it.
But what about the times when you are wrong, and not aware of it?

You have not explained how you can say anything about something that is by definition unreachable to us.

I'll agree to this:
IF there is a reality completely independent of any subjective perceivers, that reality is objective (in your rather meaningless sense of the word).

But you can not know that there is a reality completely independent of any subjective perceiver. Asserting it is a guess!

You cannot know this because you and everyone else who can be consulted about this matter have subjective perspectives.


How on Earth can you possibly assert that I have not explained something that I have explained a couple dozen times already????????

You may not agree with my explanation...but I most assuredly have explained it.

There is nothing meaningless about my suggestions here, Cyracuz.

And even if REALITY is totally dependent on subjective perceivers...THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE REALITY ACTUALLY IS.

That would make the REALITY objectively dependent upon subjective perceivers.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:34 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

How about simply agreeing to disagree? Or maybe to admit that neither of us is expressing himself adequately to resolve the difference? Smile


I have no problem with that at all.

But I see nobody here willing to drop it. I merely respond to what others write.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:35 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

All it would take was for Frank to study the concept of "objectivity". Then he might realize that his use of the word in this context is completely unwarranted.


In my opinion, what it would take is for you to open your mind to what I have said, because what I have said makes sense.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM wrote:

How about simply agreeing to disagree? Or maybe to admit that neither of us is expressing himself adequately to resolve the difference? Smile


I have no problem with that at all.

But I see nobody here willing to drop it. I merely respond to what others write.


I'm quite fine with dropping it. Maybe we'll both figure out how to communicate our ideas more productively and then re-engage. It appears that you and I are in the minority for doubting that belief is necessary for the human psyche, regardless of its near ubiquity, so maybe we will be able to utilize that common ground as a venue to explore this more deeply in the (hopefully near) future. Cheers.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 07:58 am
In Logic when the conclusion from the given pre assumed premisses immediately entails a contradiction, for lack of internal consistency, the hypothesis is automatically refuted...the hypothesis that observers may be needed to create a reality is self refuted once one must assume an observer is itself a real entity, and thus that a reality already exists !!!
There is nothing in this argument which is not being fair or odd, is a classical straight forward exercise in Logic and those who claim to play by the rules should address it, as anyone reading can clearly see that it is IMPOSSIBLE an actual existing living observer to not be real in order to create the real !
Arguing the opposite is so pathetically bluntly stupid that one ought to wonder just what is it wrong in anyone's mind to suppose the opposite and argue it in public ! If there was an audible audience around major laughing would cross the room... Laughing
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 08:05 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Please take your medicines as prescribed. Thank you.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 08:44 am
@FBM,
Do you have a counter clown or just ad hominem ? Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:08 am
@Cyracuz,
He'll never accept the dictionary definition of "objective," because he just won't. He loves to rant his definition that makes no sense to those who use the proper definitions ad nauseam. We all "get it" except him.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:12 am
@FBM,
They continue to argue, "if A which I can't prove must by inference be B" is NOT LOGICAL.

They need to study correct definition of words and logic.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
It makes sense IF you have the assumption that "reality" is an object beyond our perception, and that subjective reality is only individual interpretations of this object.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

He'll never accept the dictionary definition of "objective," because he just won't. He loves to rant his definition that makes no sense to those who use the proper definitions ad nauseam. We all "get it" except him.


ci...what IS...IS. It is immutable. If that doesn't fit the definition you are using of objective...get a different definition, because that one is WRONG.

REALITY IS WHAT ACTUALLY IS...and what IS...simply IS.

Nothing can change that.

You cannot get any more objective than that!

Get off the nonsense.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:26 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

It makes sense IF you have the assumption that "reality" is an object beyond our perception, and that subjective reality is only individual interpretations of this object.



Same thing I just wrote to ci goes for you, Cyracuz. There cannot be a more specific example of OBJECTIVE than REALITY being what IS.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

He'll never accept the dictionary definition of "objective," because he just won't. He loves to rant his definition that makes no sense to those who use the proper definitions ad nauseam. We all "get it" except him.


ci...what IS...IS. It is immutable. If that doesn't fit the definition you are using of objective...get a different definition, because that one is WRONG.

REALITY IS WHAT ACTUALLY IS...and what IS...simply IS.

Nothing can change that.

You cannot get any more objective than that!

Get off the nonsense.


AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW WHAT REALITY IS...in order for that to be true. All you have to know is that it IS...WHATEVER IT IS.

And that is a tautology. It is what it is by definition as well as logic.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:34 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil
The tenets and creeds of your naive realism are not absolute truths.
I am sorry you cannot see that.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 09:51 am
I am an atheist but I will just present a video where a similar claim is made and you guys can judge the reaction as William Lane Craig shatters the argument to shreds...now instead of a "God" for an uncaused cause just think of a Multiverse for alternative and you can clearly see that whatever is the first cause you choose such cause needs be independent...equally to the Universe an observer could not be the cause of itself existence ! Nothing can be its own cause, as it implies a paradox to think so ! If coincidence between the cause and the effect exist we logically say that such event is uncaused and that time as the sequencer is not an essential feature of such reality...
Here is the video:

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Religion and the Unkown. - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Word for a belief that ... ? - Discussion by Charli
The Reality of Lies .... ??? - Discussion by NoName77
Existence of God. - Discussion by jeremiahscheidt
Is God "Father Sky" and, Goddess" Mother Earth?" - Discussion by Amoh5
What constitutes evidence? - Question by neologist
How can you trust your own reasoning if you believe you are a born sinner? - Question by ankafil
Are we agents of a greater will? Are we ready to overcome our master? - Question by ShadowKnight
What do you believe is true, but cannot prove? - Discussion by rosborne979
Clairvoyants, psychics, mediums, palmists.. et al. - Question by mark noble
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How is this definition of "belief"?
  3. » Page 86
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 07:45:48
▲ ▼