How is this definition of "belief"?

1 - Again you do realize that in order for something to change, something must first have a defined state, an objective state ? How could you tell otherwise what changed ?

2 - I already explain you more then once that making subjective choices has nothing to say on objective reality, nobody is denying subjective choices exist...while I subjectively may choose to take a chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla how does that change the fact that I am making an actual choice ?
In turn if I chosen chocolate n got back a vanilla ice cream because you observed the experience then you could rightfully claim reality is a subjective affair...but I don't think you believe that either..although that is precisely the type of claim you are doing without noticing...

3 - Care to ask Cyracuz what he actually thinks about that matter when he says observation might play a role in defining what is real..did you know for instance that in other threads he already equated the possibility the Moon is not there when you are not observing it ? Go ahead ask him if he is just a little bit honest he will admit he said it...

You ought to pay more attention next time before cherry peaking sides in a debate you are not really involved with...

I'm not "cherry-picking" anything! I only respond directly to posts if I agree or disagree with the opinion posted. It doesn't matter who provides the post.

You wrote,

It doesn't matter what you define it after the individual decides to do whatever they do. It's done, and it was a subjective choice.

"Nothing to say on objective reality" is perfectly clear; it doesn't matter to the individual or to any observer. Nobody on this planet thinks after they have done anything "I went to the store so that's an objective reality." That's very stupid!

lol Cic "nothing to say on objective reality" has nothing to do on whatever subjective choice you are making...you are totally lost there...
...whatever you do you do even if you don't perceive what you are doing...in fact most of us have accidents precisely because such distinction is clear.
What is meant is that a state of affairs exists even when you are not observing such state of affairs like the freezer is still in the kitchen after you closed the door..the state of affairs of the freezer is independent on you actually seeing it...the claim being made in this thread is that there is a possibility reality does not exist when there are no observers around..do you understand now ? or do you want me to repeat it ? Ask Cyr go ahead !

Another stupid assumption; .

You try to create conditions that tries to meet your other stupid assumptions about reality.

You must study logic and English composition. You fail at both.

FACTS:
#1: Life exists on earth
#2: Most life forms have experienced evolution
#3: Humans are able to think, communicate, record history, and make decisions about their personal life
#4: You are stupid

You have far from "killed it"...and I will continue to "parrot" it for as long as you do not get it.

Let me tray again to make myself clear, as it seems neither Fil nor Frank have understood what I am saying in this thread.

"Objectivity" is what it revolves around.

That which is "objective" exists freely and independently of the feelings, opinions and perceptions of any sentient subject.

There is a word that is omitted from that definition. The full wording would be "That which is 'objective' appears to exist freely and independently of the feelings, opinions and perceptions of any sentient subject.

This extra word is omitted because it is understood by everyone that we only ever experience our own subjective feelings, opinions and perceptions, and so appearance is all we are speaking of.

We have the concept "objective reality" because we have compared experiences and deduced that there is a shared aspect to what each of us can subjectively determine exists.

We have some very strong indications that there is such an "objective reality". We have some pretty persuasive arguments in favor of it.

But we do not have definite proof.
The very argument itself is defined so that proof is an impossibility.
And if it cannot be proven, it is assumption.

Even the fact that water boils at 100°c at sea level would be considered an assumption if we could not test it.

This is what both Frank and Fil either refuse to acknowledge or simply fail to grasp.
This is a thread about the definition of belief, and examining what is knowable and what cannot be known is part of the topic.

So, the criteria for something to be called fact is that it must be verifiable. The claim that "reality is objective" is not verifiable, and therefore it is an assumption.

The same is true of the claim that 'reality is subjective'..... therefore it is ineffable.

Oh bullshit, reality as we can know is by definition subjective. What a poseur, with your ineffable bullshit. Your command of the lnaguage is far too poor for you to spout off the way you do.

I agree that 'reality is subjective' is an assumption.

But we do seem to have subjective experiences. That is the foundation for the assertion "reality is".

On the other hand, perhaps everybody else has objective experiences except you.
How would you know for sure?
It could be we're all playing a massive joke on you.

Maybe.
But what is an "objective experience"?

I'm willing to report the sense of subject-object dualism, which seems to be brain-generated and necessary in order to respond in complex ways to phenomena (newborns are thought not to have that sense), such as claiming that reality is objective, but I'm not willing to go beyond the experience of that sense to claim that that sense accurately represents any deep nature of reality.

My sense of certainty, for example, is often shown to be erroneous. Why should the sense of subject-object dualism (necessary to make claims of objectivity) be any less subject to error? If the natural selection hypothesis is correct, that which aids survival and that which is ultimately true can and often are separate things. For example, human vision is quite limited. We can't see the full light spectrum; we see only a truncated spectrum that includes the things that most help us to survive and reproduce. Same for sound, touch, taste, etc. And reason, as far as I can tell. There may or may not be an objective reality or an objective aspect to reality (slightly different statements), but I don't know of any human sense that would be able to ascertain this to an arbitrary degree of certainty.

I'm not supposed to tell you.

Go do some reading clown...the assumption is NOT MINE is on your sides claim you dumb brick, and is so well known it can be read in numerous books of Philosophy ! I am making a case against it ! You ought to be a serious candidate the the most stupid and ignorant person in A2K...freaking idiot !
You probably are getting to the point on which you can't tell your way to the supermarket any more...******* asswhole can't even tell who is claiming what about what...

Whatever our perception of reality is, and I agree is subjective, our perception is implying there is a reality which is what it is and that is objective...I don't need to explain or justify in what way that which is what it is is working...the case is simply made by saying that there IS a reality, not explaining what is in reality ! Reality by definition means an independent state of affairs exists, it is what it is ! It does not change because I think about it nor the subjective mixing perception about facts alters that there is facts...if there were no facts there would not be a FACT about subjectivity itself...for instance it is objectively true that there is a state of affairs in humans which is subjective regarding perception...the problem of epistemology is distinct from the problems of ontology...how much clear one needs be about that ???

Did you learn those insults when someone used them on you? I'm just asking because they fit you perfectly, as if they were tailored for you.



Yes you are. And as ever you are failing to realize that this thread is not about this. It is about the tools we have to make any kind of assertion. Language, mostly. Through the proper understanding of language, my point is clear. The reason you can't see it is that you seem to fail at grasping the more subtle points of our discourse. Grammar is it's own logic, Fil, and most of your rather outlandish "logic" leaps are merely absurdities enabled by grammar.

If you had understood this, you would not be "making your case" as you would see that it is futile.

Implying. Not ascertaining beyond doubt.



According to who? You?
You might be surprised to find out, but I disagree. Your "definition" asserts more about reality than we can know, strictly speaking.



How do you know?????



Meaningless babble. Give it a rest, Fil, or is there still someone in the thread you haven't raged at yet?

Just as well. I might not believe you anyway.

You wrote (for the final time),

Is is NOT OBJECTIVE, because even the actor or observer who witnesses any activity cannot interpret them objectively. Look at your dictionary for the definition of "objective."

Have you ever heard of the five witnesses to an accident, and they all gave their own-subjective interpretation of the event in court?

Objectively MEANS the perception remains the SAME no matter who witnesses the event or object.

Nobody, even the actor themselves, do not know what they did ten minutes ago, yesterday, last week, last month - in total OBJECTIVITY. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Humans by our very nature are subjective animals.

It cannot be read in many books of Philosophy. For those who claims what you are claiming are ALL WRONG! You make assumptions that are idiotic at best such as if there were no one to observe reality. That's going off the deep end; it goes nowhere.

Creativity is not philosophy. It must have a BASIS IN REALITY.